MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141882346 · doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.2005.247.01.02

Mid-Pleistocene revolution and the ‘eccentricity myth’

2005· article· en· W2141882346 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Maslin, Andy Ridgwell

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyPleistoceneEccentricity (behavior)HistoryGeologyArchaeologyAncient historyGeographyPolitical scienceClassicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The mid-Pleistocene revolution (MPR) is the term used to describe the transition between 41 ka and 100 ka glacial-interglacial cycles which occurred about one million years ago. Despite eccentricity having by far the weakest influence on insolation received at the Earth’s surface of any of the orbital parameters, it is often assumed to be the primary driver of the post-MPR 100 ka climate cycles. The traditional solution to this is to call for a highly nonlinear response by the global climate system to eccentricity. This ‘eccentricity myth’ is a simplified view of the relationship between global climate and orbital forcing and is in part due to an artefact of spectral analysis. Our aim here is to clarify the often confused role of eccentricity and review current theories of the MPR. We suggest that the post-MPR ‘100 ka’ glacial-interglacial cycles are more closely linked to precession, with the saw-toothed climate cycles being defined by every four or five precessional cycle. Because control over the number of precessional cycles involved is determined by eccentricity, eccentricity at most paces rather than drives the system. If true, then one must also question whether the MPR, itself defined by an abrupt change in spectral characteristics, is not also somewhat misconceived.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations189
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207