The exaggerated radiocarbon age of deposit‐feeding molluscs in calcareous environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout northernCanada, live‐collected, pre‐bomb, deposit‐feeding marine molluscs from calcareous sediments yield greater apparent radiocarbon ages than do suspension feeders. We explore the size of this effect in a set of 57 paired datings of deposit feeders, mainlyPortlandia arctica, and suspension feeders, mainlyHiatella arcticaandMya truncata, collected from both calcareous and non‐calcareousHolocene sediments. Deposit feeders from calcareous sediments are older than their suspension‐feeding counterparts by as much as 2240±13014Cyears. This is attributed to the uptake of ‘old’ bicarbonate derived from calcareous bedrock. The age discrepancy between suspension and deposit feeders in calcareous terrain is non‐systematic in space and time, thereby invalidating the application of a correction. In contrast, the age comparisons are concordant at sites located on thePrecambrian Shield. In terrestrial environments underlain by carbonate, previous acceptance of dates on deposit feeders led to erroneous interpretations of deglaciation and relative sea‐level history, in both theNorthAmerican and theEurasianArctic. This has prompted several researchers to exclude deposit feeders from their lateQuaternary reconstructions. The same chronological problem of deposit‐feeding molluscs now needs to be more widely acknowledged by the marine community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".