MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep‐water foreland basin deposits of the Cerro Toro Formation, Magallanes basin, Chile: architectural elements of a sinuous basin axial channel belt

2008· article· en· W1674302729 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHess Corporation
KeywordsGeologyConglomerateForeland basinTurbidity currentFaciesTurbiditeGeomorphologyStructural basinSedimentary rockPaleontologyCretaceousOutcropGeochemistrySedimentary depositional environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coarse‐grained deep‐water strata of the Cerro Toro Formation in the Cordillera Manuel Señoret, southern Chile, represent the deposits of a major channel belt (4 to 8 km wide by >100 km long) that occupied the foredeep of the Magallanes basin during the Late Cretaceous. Channel belt deposits comprise a ca 400 m thick conglomeratic interval (informally named the ‘Lago Sofia Member’) encased in bathyal fine‐grained units. Facies of the Lago Sofia Member include sandy matrix conglomerate (that show evidence of traction‐dominated deposition and sedimentation from turbulent gravity flows), muddy matrix conglomerate (graded units interpreted as coarse‐grained slurry‐flow deposits) and massive sandstone beds (high‐density turbidity current deposits). Interbedded sandstone and mudstone intervals are present locally, interpreted as inner levée deposits. The channel belt was characterized by a low sinuousity planform architecture, as inferred from outcrop mapping and extensive palaeocurrent measurements. Laterally adjacent to the Lago Sofia Member are interbedded mudstone and sandstone facies derived from gravity flows that spilled over the channel belt margin. A levée interpretation for these fine‐grained units is based on several observations, which include: (i) palaeocurrent measurements that indicate flows diverged (50° to 100°) once they spilled over the confining channel margin; (ii) sandstone beds progressively thin, away from the channel belt margin; (iii) evidence that the eroded channel base was not very well indurated, including a stepped margin and injection of coarse‐grained channel material into surrounding fine‐grained units; and (iv) the presence of sedimentary features common to levées, including slumped units inferring depositional slopes dipping away from the channel margin, lenticular sandstone beds thinning distally from the channel margin, soft sediment deformation and climbing ripples. The tectonic setting and foredeep architecture influenced deposition in the axial channel belt. A significant downstream constriction of the channel belt is reflected by a transition from more tabular units to an internal architecture dominated by lenticular beds associated with a substantially increased degree of scour. Differential propagation of the fold‐thrust belt from the west is speculated to have had a major control on basin, and subsequently channel, width. The confining influence of the basin slopes that paralleled the channel belt, as well as the likelihood that numerous conduits fed into the basin along the length of the active fold‐thrust belt to the west, suggest that proximal–distal relationships observed from large channels in passive margin settings are not necessarily applicable to axial channels in elongate basins.

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.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · 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