Postglacial water levels in the Great Lakes Region in relation to Holocene climate change : Thecamoebian and Palynological evidence /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various lake phases have developed in the upper Great Lakes in response to isostatic \nadjustment and changes in water supply since the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Georgian \nBay experienced a lowstand that caused a basin wide unconformity approximately 7,500 years \nago that cannot be explained by geological events. Thecamoebians are shelled protozoans \nabundant in freshwater environments and they are generally more sensitive to changing \nenvironmental conditions than the surrounding vegetation. Thecamoebians can be used to \nreconstruct the paleolimnology. The abundance of thecamoebians belonging to the genus \nCentropyxis, which are known to tolerate slightly brackish conditions (i.e. high concentrations of \nions) records highly evaporative conditions in a closed basin. During the warmer interval (9000 \nto 700 yBP), the Centropyxis - dominated population diminishes and is replaced by an abundant \nand diverse Difflugia dominate population. \nHistorical climate records from Tobermory and Midland, Ontario were correlated with \nthe Lake Huron water level curve. The fossil pollen record and comparison with modem \nanalogues allowed a paleo-water budget to be calculated for Georgian Bay. Transfer function \nanalysis of fossil pollen data from Georgian Bay records cold, dry winters similar to modem day \nMinneapolis, Minnesota. Drier climates around this time are also recorded in bog environments \nin Southem Ontario - the drying of Lake Tonawanda and inception of paludification in \nWilloughby Bog, for instance, dates around 7,000 years ago. The dramatic impact of climate \nchange on the water level in Georgian Bay underlines the importance of paleoclimatic research \nfor predicting future environmental change in the Great Lakes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".