Cosmogenic<sup>10</sup>Be dating of raised shorelines constrains the timing of lake levels in the eastern Lake Agassiz-Ojibway basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Surface exposure dating was applied to erosional shorelines associated with the Angliers lake level that marks an important stage of Lake Ojibway. The distribution of 15 10 Be ages from five sites shows a main group (10 samples) of coherent 10 Be ages yielding a mean age of 9.9±0.7 ka that assigns the development of this lake level to the early part of the Lake Ojibway history. A smaller group (3 samples) is part of a more scattered distribution of older 10 Be ages (with 2 outliers) that points to an inheritance of cosmogenic isotopes from a previous exposure, revealing an apparent mean age of 15.8±0.9 ka that is incompatible with the Ojibway inundation and the regional deglaciation. Our results provide the first direct 10 Be chronology on the sequence of lake levels in the Ojibway basin, which includes the lake stage presumably associated with the confluence and subsequent drainage of Lakes Agassiz and Ojibway. This study demonstrates the potential of this approach to date glacial lake shorelines and underlies the importance of obtaining additional chronological constraints on the Agassiz-Ojibway shoreline sequence to confidently assign a particular lake stage and/or lake-level drawdown to a specific time interval of the deglaciation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".