MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Architecture of coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin: the Carboniferous Joggins Formation of eastern Canada

2003· article· en· W1614655571 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah J. Davies, Martin R. Gibling

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyAggradationSiltstoneProgradationPaleontologyMarine transgressionCarboniferousAlluviumAlluvial plainSlumpingAlluvial fanFluvialSubsidenceIsopach mapConglomerateGeomorphologyStructural basinSedimentary depositional environmentFacies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Joggins Formation was deposited in the Cumberland Basin, which experienced rapid mid‐Carboniferous subsidence on bounding faults. A 600 m measured section of coastal and alluvial plain strata comprises cycles tens to hundreds of metres thick. The cycles commence with coal and fossiliferous limestone/siltstone intervals, interpreted as widespread flooding events. These intervals are overlain by coarsening‐upward successions capped by planar‐based sandstone mounds, up to 100 m in width that represent the progradation of small, river‐generated delta lobes into a standing body of open water developed during transgression. The overlying strata contain sand‐rich heterolithic packages, 1–8 m thick, that are associated with channel bodies 2–3 m thick and 10–50 m wide. Drifted plant debris, Calamites groves and erect lycopsid trees are preserved within these predominantly green‐grey heterolithic sediments, which were deposited on a coastal wetland or deltaic plain traversed by channel systems. The cycles conclude with red siltstones, containing calcareous nodules, that are interbedded with thin sandstones and associated with both single‐storey channel bodies (1–1·5 m thick and 2–3 m wide) and larger, multistorey channels (3–6 m thick) with incised margins. Numerous channel bodies at the same level suggest that multiple‐channel, anastomosed river systems were developed on a well‐drained floodplain. Many minor flooding surfaces divide the strata into parasequences with dominantly progradational and aggradational stacking patterns. Multistorey channel bodies are relatively thin, fine grained and modestly incised, and palaeosols are immature and cumulative. The abundance and prominence of flooding surfaces suggests that base‐level rise was enhanced, whereas the lack of evidence for abrupt basinward stepping of facies belts, coupled with the absence of strong fluvial incision and mature palaeosols, suggests that base‐level fall was suppressed. These architectural features are considered to reflect a tectonic architectural signature, in accordance with the high‐subsidence basinal setting. Evidence for restricted marine influence and variation in floral assemblages suggests modulation by eustatic and climatic effects, although their relative importance is uncertain.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations110
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207