Holoseenin ajanlasku kvartäärigeologi Cesare Emilianin tapaan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cesare Emiliani (1922–1995) was a micropalaeontologist and Quaternary geologist who introduced isotopic stratigraphy to deep-sea studies and opened the way to quantitative studies of the history of climate and the ice ages. However, beyond these contributions, he was a renaissance scientist, familiar with classical languages, versed in history, with interests in tectonics, evolution, extinction and human impact on our planet, to name a few. A quarter century ago, Emiliani (1993, 1994) proposed a calendar reform that was supposed to renew our way to count years. This calendar has its starting point at the beginning of the Holocene and as a result has no obvious religious connotation. In particular, the new timeline (also known as the ‘Holocene calendar’ or ‘Human Era calendar’) was expected to benefit from simplifications concerning the BC/AD boundary. That is, the lack of year zero in our current calendar,which needs to be taken into account every time the time intervals are calculated over the boundary (for example, the distance between 1.5 BC and AD 1.5 equals only one year, not three years). Moreover, the numbers increase in opposite directions over the BC/AD boundary, whereas the time flows in the same direction. In Emiliani’s calendar reform the year 10,000 BC was set to 1. As a result, the years 1 BC and AD 1 would then become the years 10,000 and 10,001, respectively. Accordingly, we would today live the year 12,019. Interestingly, the reform results in a timeline that mimics the geochronology recovered from proglacial varve records from southern Finland, as it was originally set by Sauramo (1918, 1920). This varve record was based on a timeline where the zero year of the chronology was set to the varve expected to have been deposited at the end of the second Salpausselkä phase i.e. the base of the Holocene. Despite the obvious advantages, the calendar reform was also criticized by contemporaries, including geoscientists. More generally, Emiliani’s suggestion illustrates the difficulties inherent in trying to juxtapose the human calendar with the geological time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".