MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Calibrated<i>Rhizocarpon</i>spp. Growth Curve for the Mount Waddington Area, British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada

2004· article· en· W2180558051 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sonya J. Larocque, Dan J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Antarctic and Alpine Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInter-American Institute for Global Change Research
KeywordsMoraineGlacierMountPhysical geographyDendrochronologyPopulationGeologyGeographyRadiocarbon datingArchaeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A calibrated Rhizocarpon spp. lichen growth curve spanning the last 680 yr was developed for the Bella Coola and Mount Waddington areas, southern Coast Mountains of British Columbia (Canada). It is based on 18 control surfaces whose ages were determined using radiocarbon dates, tree-ring dated moraines, and ice front positions derived from historical air photographs. Population distribution statistics were used to assess the validity of each control lichen measurement. The relationship is characterized by logarithmic growth during the first 100 yr following surface stabilization, and is described as linear for the successive 600 yr. Application of the curve at Tiedemann Glacier revealed evidence for six periods of late-Neoglacial moraine formation in ca. AD 620, 925, 1118, 1392, 1575, and 1621. The study confirms the importance of incorporating a multisite approach and a lichen population dynamic assessment. Large samples sizes and replication are also noted as necessary in order to adequately assess any dating errors.

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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Antarctic and Alpine ResearchSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207