MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532888867 · doi:10.1306/13331534m983521

Great American Carbonate Bank Subsurface Stratigraphy in the Northern Appalachian Basin, New York State

2012· book-chapter· en· W1532888867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Langhorne B. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStratigraphyStructural basinCarbonateGeochemistryPaleontologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The great American carbonate bank stratigraphy in the subsurface of New York state includes the Cambrian–Ordovician Sauk megasequence carbonates that have a significant component of interbedded siliciclastics, particularly in the western part of the state. The Sauk megasequence onlaps the Precambrian basement on what was an east–west-trending high across Lake Ontario to the Adirondacks and is capped by the regional Knox unconformity. The unconformity overlies Lower Ordovician strata in the eastern part of the basin and progressively older strata to the west-northwest. The Sauk megasequence carbonates and siliciclastics all appear to be cyclic shallow-marine deposits. Siliciclastics were sourced from the Precambrian basement exposed to the north and west. During and perhaps just before the period when the Knox unconformity formed, an uplift existed along a northeast–southwest-trending unnamed arch that trends roughly parallel to Lake Erie in western New York that caused greater erosion to occur in the northwestern part of the state and progressively less in the southeastern part of the basin.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

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)0.0090.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists eBooksSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207