1999 Lake Winnipeg project: cruise report and scientific results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the 1997 Red River flood, a program of research was initiated to determine how large the floods can be, how often large floods have occurred in recent centuries, and whether natural factors may be changing the flood risk. As part of this program, 15 cores were collected from the south basin of Lake Winnipeg. Paleomagnetic profiles were used to select three apparently undisturbed, high-sedimentationrate cores for detailed chemical, physical, and biological analyses, to assess whether Red River floods are recognizable in the lake. A thousand-year paleomagnetic chronology was confirmed and augmented by Cs-137, Pb- 210, palynology, radiocarbon dating, and inorganic geochemical relative age markers. While some parameters exhibit multi-century fluctuations, varying excursions, and 20th century shifts, grain-size results show the clearest signal of recurring events. Several layers of enhanced silt, 1-4 cm thick, with 6-15 % more silt than background are present, in several cases correlating core to core. A Red River flood origin for these silt excursions is plausible. The results also provide indications of increased contamination, nutrient influx, and more rapid sedimentation in the 20th century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".