MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6987837356

Using palynological modern analogues to locate a buried dikeland soil in a recovering Bay of Fundy salt marsh

2004· dissertation· en· W6987837356 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaySalt marshMarshDikeEstuaryHydrology (agriculture)WetlandSwampSedimentSalt pan
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The upper Bay of Fundy's Cumberland Basin contains an estimated 16,500 hectares of salt marsh, nearly all of which have been diked and converted to agricultural lands since the arrival of the Acadians in the late 17 th century. John Lusby Marsh is a 600 ha salt marsh that was diked and farmed for approximately 250 years, until dikes breached in the late 1940s and the marsh was restored to tidal conditions. A sediment core that contained the reclamation surface was extracted in John Lusby Marsh, and a trial set of eight fossil pollen spectra was compared to the modern analogues. Discriminant analysis classified the fossil samples into a plausible sequence of historic land uses which included phases when the marsh was diked and farmed. A comparison of the soil characteristics and pollen spectra from this study to those in a previously published study of a nearby salt marsh at Amherst N.S. suggest that flooding of a dikeland was misinterpreted as a sudden increase in the rate of sea level rise. Historical air photos support this conclusion by showing that the sampling location was indeed diked and farmed before the 1940s.

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)0.001
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 score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207