© Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht- Printed in the Netherlands Is vegetation in equilibrium with climate? How to interpret late-Quaternary pollen data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current methods for estimating past climatic patterns from pollen data require that the vegetation be in dynamic equilibrium with the climate. Because climate varies continuously on all time scales, judgement about equilibrium conditions must be made separately for each frequency band (i.e. time scale) of climatic change. For equilibrium conditions to exist between vegetation and climatic changes at a particular time scale, the climatic response time of the vegetation must be small compared to the time scale of climatic varia-tion to which it is responding. The time required for vegetation to respond completely to climatic forcing at a time scale of 104 yr is still unknown, but records of the vegetational response to climatic events of 500-to 1000-yr duration provide evidence for relatively short response times. Independent estimates for the possi-ble patterns and timing of late-Quaternary climate changes uggest hat much of the vegetational evidence previously interpreted as resulting from disequilibrium conditions can instead be interpreted as resulting from the individualistic response of plant taxa to the different regional patterns of temperature and precipitation change. The differences among taxa in their response to climate can lead a) to rates and direction of plant-population movements that differ among taxa and b) to fossil assemblages that differ from any modern as-semblage. An example of late-Holocene vegetational change in southern Quebec illustrates how separate changes in summer and winter climates may explain the simultaneous expansion of spruce (Picea) popula-tions southward and beech (Fagus) populations northward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.535 | 0.429 |
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".