MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156816260 · doi:10.7202/032793ar

Middle Wisconsinan Climate Fluctuations Recorded in Central Alaskan Loess

2007· article· en· W2156816260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jim Begét

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLoessGeologyPermafrostRadiocarbon datingPaleosolHolocenePhysical geographyClimatologyOceanographyGeomorphologyPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluctuations in Middle Wisconsinan environments are recorded in high resolution proxy climatic curves derived from magnetic susceptibility profiling of central Alaskan loess. Two intervals of low wind intensity and climatic amelioration, separated by a period of somewhat higher wind intensity, can be recognized in several loess records of the Middle Wisconsinan. Radiocarbon dates from loess in the Fox Permafrost Tunnel indicate that the culmination of the later period of low wind intensity occurred ca. 30-32.000 yr BP, and was associated with thermal degradation of permafrost. An older period of low wind intensity early in the Middle Wisconsinan, ca. 50-60,000 yr BP, is correlative with a fossil wood horizon in the permafrost tunnel and a widespread paleosol in loess sections. Warm intervals of similar age are recorded in the Grande Pile pollen record, in ice cores and in marines cores. The 30-32,000 yr BP and the 50-60,000 yr BP warm events recorded in Alaskan loess sequences may have been caused by "greenhouse" warming produced by transient increases in atmospheric CO2 as recorded in the Vostok ice core. A Middle Wisconsinan interval of higher wind intensity, associated with the development of ice wedges, may reflect climatic cooling due to low atmospheric CO2 values ca. 42,000 yr BP.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207