Optical Dating of Modern and Late Holocene Dune Sands in the Brandon Sand Hills, Southwestern Manitoba*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For any suite of optical dating samples two issues that must be considered are: do zero-age samples yield an optical age of zero, and are the optical ages consistent with independent stratigraphic and chronologic information? A test of the zero-age of dune sands was performed by dating samples from the crest, lee slope and stoss slope of an active dune in southwestern Manitoba. Three surface samples showed that, using 1.4 eV (infrared) excitation of K-feldspars, the equivalent dose, and hence “age”, depended on whether the bleach used for the thermal transfer correction was infrared/red or sunlight, leading to an age uncertainty of about ±40 years. Optical ages for samples 50 cm below these, and calculated relative to them, were 8 ± 8, 1 ± 7, and 38 ± 7 years, independent of the bleach used. These ages are consistent with expectations for the crest, lee slope and stoss slope, respectively. Optical ages of late Holocene dune sand units at the Brookdale Road section, southwestern Manitoba, were consistent with radiocarbon ages from organic matter within intervening buried soils. The suite of optical and radiocarbon ages from the Brandon Sand Hills provides a record of dune activity and stability for the region, and tentatively identifies periods of eolian activity at about 2 ka, 3.1 to 4.0 ka, and prior to 5.2 ka.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".