Paleoceanography of the northwestern Pacific across the Early–Middle Pleistocene boundary (Marine Isotope Stages 20–18)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C), and foraminiferal Mg/Ca-based temperature records, from the Chiba composite section (CbCS) exposed on the Boso Peninsula, east-central Japan. Principal component analysis (PCA) is used to capture dominant patterns of the temporal variation in these marine records, and shows that the relative abundances of calcareous nannofossil and radiolarian taxa are consistent with the water mass types inferred from geochemical proxies. The leading mode (36.3% of total variance) mirrors variation in the terrestrial East Asian winter monsoon (EAWM), reflecting seasonal trends dominated by the winter monsoon system. In the CbCS, this mode is interpreted as reflecting the interplay between the warm Kuroshio and cold Oyashio waters, which is likely related to the latitudinal shift of the subtropical-subarctic gyre boundary in the North Pacific. The second mode (15.4% of total variance) is closely related to subsurface conditions. The leading mode indicates that MIS 19b and 19a are represented by millennial-scale stadial/interstadial oscillations. Northerly positions for the gyre boundary during late MIS 19c, the interstadials of MIS 19a, and early MIS 18 are inferred from the leading mode, which is consistent with a weak EAWM and consequent mild winter climate in East Asia. Nonetheless, the northerly positions for the gyre boundary during late MIS 19c and early MIS 19a were not associated with subsurface warming presumably due to the suppressed gyre circulation itself caused by the weak Aleutian Low. Intermittent southerly positions for the gyre boundary are inferred for the stadials of MIS 19b and 19a. Regional sea surface temperature (SST) comparisons in the western North Pacific reveal that the moderate SSTs during MIS 19a through early MIS 18 were restricted to the mid- to high latitudes, influenced by the weak EAWM. Comparison between MIS 20-18 and MIS 2-1 suggests that glacial MIS 20 and 18 had significantly milder winters than MIS 2, likely related to the relatively weak EAWM. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40645-020-00395-3.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".