MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415672745 · doi:10.1002/jqs.70024

The mineral and isotopic signatures of glacially eroded sediments exported from Hudson Strait to the Labrador Sea during Hudson Strait Heinrich events H0 to H4

2025· article· en· W4415672745 on OpenAlexaffabout
John T. Andrews, David J. W. Piper, Matthew E. Kirby, Donald C. Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quaternary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of Oceanography
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbonateGlacial periodSedimentProvenanceHeavy mineralLithologyDebrisGlacierSedimentary rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The sediment signature of glacial erosion products exported from Hudson Strait to the Labrador Sea during Hudson Strait Heinrich (HS‐H) events is evaluated using four distinct proxies: paired δ 18 Ο and δ 13 C data on the carbonate fraction, εNd and U–Pb isotopes in the silicate fraction, the mineral composition of the <2 mm bulk sediment fraction, and the lithologic composition of the >2 mm granules. Most detrital carbonate was eroded from Ordovician limestones on the floor of Hudson Strait. Silicate components were derived largely from Paleoproterozoic metamorphic and igneous bedrock, mostly on southern Baffin Island. A five‐component sediment unmixing model shows that HS‐H sediments were predominantly from Hudson Strait, whereas intervening sediment in the SW Labrador Sea has a predominant signature from Labrador but includes some detrital carbonate. Carbonate derived from the Western Basin and red sandstone granules from Keewatin are most abundant in the early part of HS‐H 1, 2, and 4. Sediment budgets imply 10–15 m deepening of Hudson Strait over the last glacial cycle. The magnitude and longevity of detrital carbonate transport by icebergs during HS‐H events require the inmixing of debris throughout the entire ice stream as it crossed the Abloviak sill.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quaternary ScienceSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207