Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interglacial sediments have been known to occur at Toronto for about a century. There have been two main periods of attention: first by A. P. Coleman in the early twentieth century; and second mostly by the author and co-workers in the past quarter century. Attention was focussed early on the Don Formation because of its rich fossil assemblages. The Don Formation, consisting of gravel, sand, and clay, is commonly 6 to 9 m thick and has been encountered in outcrop only along the DonValley. However, excavations and borings indicate its presence under much of southern Metropolitan Toronto; it may continue northward along the Laurentian River Valley. Its only continuing, accessible exposure has been the Don Valley Brickyard. Early paleontological study emphasized molluscs, wood, leaves, and a few bones, which suggested a climate warmer than present. More recent studies have stressed microfossils. including pollen, diatoms, ostracodes. molluscs, Cladocera, insects, plant macrofossils, and microvertebrates. Altogether about 500 species have been identified, and the list is growing. Climatic indicators show that the Don Formation represents the declining temperatures of the waning half of an interglaciation. Although the Don Formation is beyond the range of radiocarbon dates and is undated, amino acid analysis on wood and shells support assignment to Sangamonian time. The overlying Scarborough Formation clay and sand, and the Pottery Road Formation sand contain mainly cold-climate fossils. These are in turn overlain by Early, Middle, and Late Wisconsinan tills and interbedded lacustrine sediments with corresponding radiocarbon and thermoluminescence (TL) dates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".