MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583229874 · doi:10.1016/s0967-0653(97)84060-4

10.1016/s0967-0653(97)84060-4

2000· article· en· W1583229874 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Σ. Πούλος, Michael B. Collins, H. F. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClay mineralsGeologyIlliteTerrigenous sedimentChloriteKaoliniteGeochemistrySedimentary depositional environmentDeposition (geology)SedimentationMineralogyGeomorphologySedimentary rockSedimentStructural basinQuartzPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dispersion mechanisms and the deposition of fine-grained deltaic sediments are described in three semi-enclosed shallow marine embayments of Greece. Emphasis is placed upon the origin, relative abundance, and lateral distribution of clay minerals; these are the main constituents of the clay-sized fraction. Sandy deposits dominate the areas adjacent to the river mouths (topsets), whilst clays and silts are the main constituents of the delta front (foresets) and prodelta (bottomsets) areas, respectively. The main clay minerals present are illite (the most abundant), smectite, chlorite and kaolinite; all of these are of terrigenous origin. There is a tendency for the illite content to decrease to seawards, whilst the smectite content increases: chlorite and kaolinite are more abundant at the delta front. The observed distributions can be explained in terms of size segregation and bio-physico-chemical processes ( e.g ., flocculation and pelletization, associated with interaction between the freshwater fluvial outflow and the saline ambient waters ( e.g ., plume dispersion and upwards entrainment). A generalised depositional model, for fine-grained sediments in such shallow marine environments, is presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)1.0001.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.153 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207