MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345935918 · doi:10.1657/aaar0014-082

Chemical Differentiation between Immersed and Dry Wood Samples in Nunavik (Northern Quebec, Canada): Preliminary Results

2016· article· en· W2345935918 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stéphanie Steelandt, Anne‐Catherine Pierson‐Wickmann, Najat Bhiry, Dominique Marguerie, Martine Bouhnik‐Le Coz

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Antarctic and Alpine Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersLuonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen ToimikuntaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Rennes 1
KeywordsTundraDeciduousDry weightEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyForestryGeographyBotanyEcologyBiologyArctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aim of this study was to differentiate immersed wood samples from dry wood samples based on chemical analysis. The method has been developed to be applied to wood found in archaeological sites to distinguish between driftwood and wood that was cut in the forest tundra and then transported to the sites. The results of our research show that Na concentrations in the immersed samples were much higher than in the dry samples for coniferous and deciduous wood samples. Principal components analysis (PCA) based on the element concentrations normalized to the total cation concentrations show that the data from the immersed wood samples and the dry wood samples clustered into two separate groups.

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)0.000
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Antarctic and Alpine ResearchSame topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207