MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287193909 · doi:10.82308/53454

Modern pollen and vegetation relationships in Bay of Fundy salt marshes

2001· article· en· W2287193909 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. Beth Beecher

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSalt marshMarshPollenBayVegetation (pathology)EcologyPhysical geographyGeographyWetlandGeologyOceanographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines modern relationships among salt marsh plant species and their pollen in three salt marshes located on the northwest coast of the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Linear regression analysis of pollen in 35 surface sediment samples and vegetation cover on small (<15 m) and broad (>15 m) scales show that, with the exception of Poaceae and Cheno Am, pollen corresponds well with fine-scale patterns of salt marsh vegetation. Scatter diagrams of paired pollen and cover data illustrate that cover of Triglochin is over-represented by its pollen, Glaux is under-represented, and Poaceae, Cheno Am, and Plantago are inconsistent. Tidal mixing and differential inputs from local, regional, and extra-regional sources with elevation limit the establishment of plant-pollen relationships for Cheno Am and Poaceae but not for other taxa. Comparison of 35 modern analogs from five vegetation zones using squared chord distance show that zones are distinct such that the marsh-terrestrial interface can be tracked with the greatest degree of certainty in a salt marsh paleo-ecological record and other marsh zones can be tracked when a conservative threshold of dissimilarity is used.

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 score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207