Are Paleomagnetic Records From U‐Channels Appropriate for Studies of Reversals and Excursions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sampling of sediment cores using plastic U-channels has made possible the acquisition of detailed records of paleomagnetic secular variation, geomagnetic polarity, environmental magnetic studies, and relative paleointensity over the past several million years. U-channel measurements provide the great advantage of rapid measurements of long sediment cores, but the signal resolution is attenuated by the response function of the magnetometer sensors, which therefore restrains the recovery of rapid and large-amplitude field changes. Here we focus on the suitability of the dynamics of reversals and excursions derived from U-channel measurements. We compare successive individual paleomagnetic directions of 1.5 cm × 1.5 cm × 1.5 cm cubic discrete samples with those of a 1.5-m equivalent U-channel sample train obtained by placing the samples adjacent to each other. We use varying excursion and transition lengths and generate transitional directions that resemble those of the most detailed paleomagnetic records. Excursions with opposite polarity directions recorded over less than 7.5 cm are barely detected in U-channel measurements. Regarding reversals, U-channel measurements smooth the signal of low-resolution records and generate artificial transitional directions. Despite producing misleading similarities with the overall structure of transition records, longer transitional intervals fail also to reproduce the complexity of field changes. Finally, we test the convolution of magnetization by different response functions. The simulation reveals that even small response function changes can generate significant differences in results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".