MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387023793 · doi:10.1017/qua.2023.50

Calibrating the Wisconsin in the eastern Great Lakes of North America using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of the Quaternary sediments at Sand Hill Park, north shore of Lake Erie, Ontario

2023· article· en· W4387023793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael E. Brookfield, Jan‐Pieter Buylaert, Andrew Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoreGeologyQuaternaryOptically stimulated luminescenceArchaeologyOptical datingNational parkThermoluminescence datingOceanographyPaleontologyHoloceneGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The eastern Great Lakes Late Quaternary timescale is based on older thermoluminescence dates and on uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from extensive sections along the north shores of Lakes Erie and Ontario. New optically stimulated luminescence dates from Late Quaternary delta sediments from the north shores of Lake Erie at Sand Hills Park give consistent ages of 23.5 to 20.5 ka. This is 4 to 7 ka older than previously assigned based on lithologic correlation with 16.5 ka calibrated radiocarbon dated sediments 5 km to the west at Vanderven. On the existing eastern Great Lakes stratigraphy, it puts deposition of these Sand Hills Park sediments in the Erie interstadial and not in the fluctuating postglacial glacial retreat of the Mackinaw phase to which the Vanderven sediments belong. The Sand Hills delta and underlying diamicts must have been overridden by the Porty Bruce advance at 18 ka. IntCal20 calibration of existing radiocarbon ages suggests that the physical stratigraphic relations of the various Wisconsin units are accurate and that the existing timescale is simply too young.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207