MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937979509 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09622-y

Recent summer warming in northwestern Canada exceeds the Holocene thermal maximum

2019· article· en· W2937979509 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Trevor J. Porter, Spruce W. Schoenemann, Lauren J. Davies, Eric J. Steig, Sasiri Bandara, Duane Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGeneral Electric (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersKillam Trusts
KeywordsHoloceneClimatologyEnvironmental scienceClimate changeGlobal warmingPhysical geographyAtmospheric sciencesGeographyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eastern Beringia is one of the few Western Arctic regions where full Holocene climate reconstructions are possible. However, most full Holocene reconstructions in Eastern Beringia are based either on pollen or midges, which show conflicting early Holocene summer temperature histories. This discrepancy precludes understanding the factors that drove past (and potentially future) climate change and calls for independent proxies to advance the debate. We present a ~13.6 ka summer temperature reconstruction in central Yukon, part of Eastern Beringia, using precipitation isotopes in syngenetic permafrost. The reconstruction shows that early Holocene summers were consistently warmer than the Holocene mean, as supported by midges, and a thermal maximum at ~7.6-6.6 ka BP. This maximum was followed by a ~6 ka cooling, and later abruptly reversed by industrial-era warming leading to a modern climate that is unprecedented in the Holocene context and exceeds the Holocene thermal maximum by +1.7 ± 0.7 °C.

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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations79
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207