MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972472890 · doi:10.1017/rdc.2019.110

Revisiting the Timing of the Northern Lobe of the White River Ash Volcanic Event in Eastern Alaska and Western Yukon

2019· article· en· W2972472890 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joshua D. Reuther, Ben A. Potter, Sam Coffman, Holly Smith, Nancy H. Bigelow

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiocarbon · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of Tourism and Culture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTephraRadiocarbon datingVolcanic ashVolcanoGeologyDeposition (geology)Physical geographyWhite (mutation)ArchaeologyRange (aeronautics)HoloceneGeochemistryPaleontologySedimentGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The northern lobe of the White River Ash (WRAn) is part of a bilobate distribution of tephras that originated from the Wrangell Volcanic Field near the border of Alaska, USA, and Yukon, Canada. It is distributed across northeastern Alaska and the northwestern portion of the Yukon. The timing of this eruption has seen little critical analysis relative to the younger and more extensive eastern lobe eruption of the White River Ash. We compiled 38 radiocarbon ( 14 C) dates from above and below the WRAn, and employed several statistical approaches to identify and eliminate or down-weight outliers, combine dates, and different Bayesian models, to provide a revised age estimate for the timing of the WRAn tephra deposition. Our results indicate that the most accurate modeled age estimate for the northern lobe of the White River Ash deposition is between 1689 and 1560 cal BP, with a mean and median of 1625 and 1623 cal BP, respectively. This age range is 90 to 200 years younger than previous age estimates.

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)0.001
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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiocarbonSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207