MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144097136 · doi:10.1139/e08-039

High-resolution paleomagnetic secular variation and relative paleointensity records from the western Canadian Arctic: implication for Holocene stratigraphy and geomagnetic field behaviourThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme <i>Polar Climate Stability Network</i>.GEOTOP Contribution 2008-0024.

2008· article· en· W2144097136 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Francesco Barletta, Guillaume St‐Onge, James E T Channell, André Rochon, Leonid Polyak, Dennis A. Darby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersUniversity of Florida
KeywordsGeologyPaleomagnetismSecular variationEarth's magnetic fieldHoloceneDeclinationGeomagnetic secular variationPaleontologyChronostratigraphyStratigraphyArcticMagnetic declinationGeophysicsOceanographyStructural basinTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two piston cores recovered from the Chukchi and the Beaufort seas document Arctic Holocene geomagnetic field behaviour and highlight the potential of secular variation and relative paleointensity as a regional chronostratigraphic tool. Several centennial- to millennial-scale Holocene declination and inclination features can be correlated in both cores, with other high-resolution western North American lacustrine and volcanic paleomagnetic records and with records of changes in Earth’s dipole moment, supporting the geomagnetic origin of these features and implying that they are associated with changes in Earth’s dipole moment.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations63
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207