MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390827241 · doi:10.1029/2023gl105581

Pollen in Polar Ice Implies Eastern Canadian Forest Dynamics Diverged From Climate After European Settlement

2024· article· en· W4390827241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandra O. Brugger, Nathan Chellman, Andreas Plach, Paul D. Henne, A. Stohl, Joseph R. McConnell

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiomePollenTaigaClimate changeVegetation (pathology)BorealPhysical geographyGeographyEcologyIce coreClimatologyIce ageGeologyEcosystemForestryBiologyGlacial periodPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rapid warming and human exploitation threaten boreal forests. Understanding links among vegetation, climate, and people in this vast biome requires highly resolved long‐term records that integrate regional inputs. We developed an 850‐year pollen‐based record of supraregional vegetation change using a southern Greenland ice core and atmospheric modeling that identified the boreal and mixed‐conifer forests of eastern Canada as the dominant pollen source regions. Conifer pollen increased ∼1400 CE at the onset of the cooler and drier Little Ice Age. A subsequent decline began ∼1650 CE and a statistically significant pollen change after 1760 CE suggests ecological consequences of the Little Ice Age cooling and initial human exploitation that persisted until recent decades. These supraregional changes are broadly consistent with local records and demonstrate intensification of human impacts on northern forests, suggesting a shift from a climate‐modulated to an increasingly human‐controlled system during recent centuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→