Application of an inverse method to interpret <sup>231</sup>Pa/<sup>230</sup>Th observations from marine sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Records of 231Pa/230Th from Atlantic sediments have been interpreted to reflect changes in ocean circulation during the geologic past. Such interpretations should be tested with due regard to the limited spatial coverage of 231Pa/230Th data and the uncertainties in our current understanding of the behavior of both nuclides in the ocean. Here an inverse method is used to evaluate the information contained in 231Pa/230Th compilations for the Holocene, Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), and Heinrich Event 1 (H1). An estimate of the abyssal circulation in the modern Atlantic Ocean is obtained by combining hydrographic observations and dynamical constraints. Then sediment 231Pa/230Th data for each time interval are combined with an advection‐scavenging model in order to determine their (in)consistency with the modern circulation estimate. We find that the majority of sediment 231Pa/230Th data for the Holocene, LGM, or H1 can be brought into consistency with the modern circulation if plausible assumptions are made about the large‐scale distribution of 231Pa and about model uncertainties. Moreover, the adjustments in the data needed to reach compatibility with a hypothetical state of no flow (no advection) are positively biased for each time interval, suggesting that the 231Pa/230Th data (including that for H1) are more consistent with a persistence of some circulation than with no circulation. Our study does not imply that earlier claims of a circulation change during the LGM or H1 are inaccurate, but that these claims cannot be given a rigorous basis given the current uncertainties involved in the analysis of the 231Pa/230Th data.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".