Implication of methodological uncertainties for mid-Holocene sea surface temperature reconstructions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We present and examine a multi-sensor global compilation of mid-Holocene (MH) sea surface temperatures (SST), based on Mg/Ca and alkenone palaeothermometry and reconstructions obtained using planktonic foraminifera and organic-walled dinoflagellate cyst census counts. We assess the uncertainties originating from using different methodologies and evaluate the potential of MH SST reconstructions as a benchmark for climate-model simulations. The comparison between different analytical approaches (time frame, baseline climate) shows the choice of time window for the MH has a negligible effect on the reconstructed SST pattern, but the choice of baseline climate affects both the magnitude and spatial pattern of the reconstructed SSTs. Comparison of the SST reconstructions made using different sensors shows significant discrepancies at a regional scale, with uncertainties often exceeding the reconstructed SST anomaly. Apparent patterns in SST may largely be a reflection of the use of different sensors in different regions. Overall, the uncertainties associated with the SST reconstructions are generally larger than the MH anomalies. Thus, the SST data currently available cannot serve as a target for benchmarking model simulations. Further evaluations of potential subsurface and/or seasonal artifacts that may contribute to obscure the MH SST reconstructions are urgently needed to provide reliable benchmarks for model evaluations.
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 | 0.037 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".