MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791892604 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggy111

A re-appraisal of the proposed rapid Matuyama–Brunhes geomagnetic reversal in the Sulmona Basin, Italy

2018· article· en· W2791892604 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Evans, Adrian R. Muxworthy

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoercivityGeologyRemanenceEarth's magnetic fieldGeomagnetic reversalMagnetostratigraphyPaleomagnetismGeophysicsNatural remanent magnetizationPolarity (international relations)Rock magnetismPaleontologySeismologyMagnetizationMagnetic fieldCondensed matter physicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An extremely sharp magnetic reversal observed in lacustrine sediments in central Italy has been interpreted as a record of the Matuyama–Brunhes geomagnetic polarity reversal that may represent less than a decade. Here, we report new results from the same Sulmona Basin outcrops that question this interpretation. In particular, we find evidence of reversed (Matuyama) directions well above the proposed Matuyama–Brunhes Boundary (MBB). Coercivity spectra of anhysteretic remanent magnetization imply a three-component magnetic mineralogy: low-, intermediate- and high-coercivity. The low-coercivity component is found in all but one of the samples and carries a strong modern overprint seen throughout the section. The high-coercivity component is dominated by volcanic material which is prone to remagnetization. Since it is much more magnetic than the surrounding lacustrine sediments, it may influence the remanence signal even when present at very low concentrations. The intermediate-coercivity component is the main carrier of any true primary remanence, but whether or not this can be isolated depends on the blocking temperature and coercivity spectra of individual samples and on the demagnetization method used. The complexity of the magnetization, the reversed zones above the proposed MBB and the normal zones that Sagnotti and colleagues found below it lead to the conclusion that this section does not carry a reliable high-resolution record of the geomagnetic field. Thus, we feel that inferences about the stratigraphic position and duration of the MBB are premature.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207