Identifying glacio–isostatic rebound processes using testate amoeba as palaeohydrological proxies; a case study from subarctic Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glacio–isostatic rebound is one of the most important landscape processes affecting the northern and northeastern coast of Canada and, therefore, reconstruction of postglacial rebound rates is critical for a better understanding of landscape evolution in this region. Yet, studies reconstructing coastal palaeogeography in Northern Canadaare constrained by the limitation of shell–based radiocarbon chronologies used in dating shoreline displacementand palaeo–sea levels. This study proposes an alternative methodology for the reconstruction and dating of palaeo–sea levels, which uses testate amoeba microfossils from coastal sediments as palaeoecological markers of coastal water table shifts linked to sea level change. Our results indicate that testate amoeba–inferred water table reconstruction is a good indicator of water table drawdown due to isostatic uplift on affected coastlines. Furthermore, radiocarbon dating of distinct plant macrofossils within the transitional marine/freshwater stratigraphy avoids the inherent reservoir effect issues associated with dating of marine shells.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".