A Basin Analysis of the Wabigoon Area of Lake Agassiz, a Quaternary Clay Basin in Northwerstern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information from a wide range of sources is integrated in a basin analysis of the Wabigoon Basin, a Quaternary clay basin located on the Canadian Shield in northwestern Ontario. The basin sediments were deposited between 10.9 ka and 9.5 ka, along the margin of the Rainy Lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which formed the northern boundary of proglacial Lake Agassiz. The basin architecture is dominated by four major elements: end moraines, eskers, kames and a clay plain, all of which overlie irregular bedrock topography. End moraines, eskers and kames are composed mainly of a fining upward sequence of gravels and sands. The geometry of these sedimentary units, and their sedimentary structures indicates they were deposited mainly by high and low-density turbidity currents, on ice-marginal subaqueous outwash fans. Eskers contain a core of coarse gravel and sand deposited within subglacial meltwater conduits, overlain by subaqueous fan sediments deposited at the conduit mouth. Esker ridges were formed during conduit filling events and flanking deposits were formed when a conduit remained in use during ice-marginal retreat. Where conduits were shortlived, isolated subaqueous fans (kames) were formed. A depositional model is proposed which relates moraine formation to catastrophic releases of subglacial meltwater and sediment simultaneously along the entire margin of the Rainy Lobe. The clay plain forms a broad blanket of fine-grained, rhythmically-bedded sediment which obscures bedrock topography, and often buries esker and kame deposits. Seismic profiles and overburden drilling reveal deep (50-70 m) bedrock lows beneath the clay plain. These lows, oriented sub-parallel to the ice margin, acted as sediment traps, and were infilled by the deposits of underflows generated at the ice margin.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".