MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121570894 · doi:10.2112/03-0058.1

Dating Evidence for the Accretion History of Beach Ridges on Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island, Florida, USA

2005· article· en· W2121570894 on OpenAlexaff
W.J. Rink

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coastal Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRidgeGeologyPeninsulaCapeAccretion (finance)Mid-Atlantic RidgeOceanographyPaleontologyArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optically stimulated luminescence ages were done on beach ridge samples from the Cape Peninsula, Merritt Island, and a mainland location in Brevard County, Florida. Age estimates on the peninsula ranged from 4000 to 150 years ago; while on Merritt Island, a beach-ridge sample yielded an age of about 43,000 years ago. The mainland sample, near Titusville, gave an age of about 8000 years. Using the age estimates for four ridges on the Canaveral Peninsula, average land accretion rates and beach-ridge accumulation rates were determined by measuring distances perpendicular to strike of the ridge sequences and counting ridges along these trends. The average ridge spacing was found to be 109 ± 20 m, the average ridge accumulation rate was 80 ± 8 y/ridge, and the average land accretion rate was found to be 135 ± 12 m per hundred years. We suggest that the ridge accumulation rate can be used to determine storm recurrence intervals on the peninsula. The peninsular age estimates show the problems associated with radio-carbon dating of shell, which overestimate burial ages by several thousand years due to reworking of older shell into younger deposits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coastal ResearchSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207