MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389489040 · doi:10.31223/x5dh4t

Will the ‘Anthropocene’ finally be formalized?

2023· preprint· en· W4389489040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valentı́ Rull

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeneralitat de CatalunyaConsejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasCentres de Recerca de Catalunya
KeywordsGlobal Boundary Stratotype Section and PointAnthropoceneStratigraphyStratotypeChronostratigraphyGeologyArchaeologyPaleontologyHistoryStructural basinStage (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proposal for the formalization of the ‘Anthropocene’ as a new geological epoch following the Holocene has just been submitted (31 October 2023) to the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). This proposal, prepared by the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) after 13 years of discussions, places the beginning of the ‘Anthropocene’ in the mid-20th century, and considers that the better-suited Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) would be placed on the varved sediments of the Canadian Crawford Lake. The primary stratigraphic marker is considered to be the radioactive fallout resulting from the first nuclear weapon tests carried out in the 1940s and 1950s. These dates coincide with the Great Acceleration, characterized by an abrupt increase in the indicators of planetary anthropization. The AWG proposal is now being considered by the ICS Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), which can endorse or reject it, or ask for modifications. If endorsed, the proposal will be submitted to the ICS Executive for approval and, if approved, it will be sent to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. The formalization of the AWG proposal is not guaranteed due to potential inconsistencies with the requirements of the International Stratigraphic Guide (ISG). Possible alternatives to an eventual rejection are briefly discussed.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.162 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207