MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911467619 · doi:10.1002/gj.2612

The upper Viséan–Serpukhovian in the type area for the Serpukhovian Stage (Moscow Basin, Russia): Part 1. Sequences, disconformities, and biostratigraphic summary

2014· article· en· W1911467619 on OpenAlexaff
Pavel Kabanov, А. S. Alekseev, Н. Б. Гибшман, R. R. Gabdullin, Aleksei V. Bershov

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersKazan Federal UniversityRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsGeologyUnconformityPaleontologyFaciesMarlCarboniferousSubaerialMarine transgressionForeland basinSiliciclasticStage (stratigraphy)HiatusStratotypeStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The upper Viséan–Serpukhovian strata in the type region for the Serpukhovian Stage is an epeiric‐sea succession ca. 90 m in thickness. The predominantly Viséan Oka Group (comprising the Aleksin, Mikhailov, and Venev formations) is dominated by photozoan packstones with fluvial siliciclastic wedges developed from the west. The Lower Serpukhovian Zaborie Group is composed of the Tarusa and Gurovo formations. The latter is a new name for the shale‐dominated unit of Steshevian Substage age in the studied area. The Zaborie Group is composed of limestones and marls in its lower (Tarusa and basal Gurovo) part and black smectitic to grey palygorskitic shales in the main part of the Gurovo Formation. The Gurovo Formation is capped by a thin limestone with oncoids and a palygorskitic–calcretic palaeosol. The Upper Serpukhovian is composed of a thin (3–12 m) Protva Limestone heavily karstified during a mid‐Carboniferous lowstand. The succession shows a number of unusual sedimentary features, such as a lack of high‐energy facies, shallow‐subtidal marine sediments penetrated by Stigmaria, the inferred atidal to microtidal regime, and palustrine beds composed of saponitic marls. The succession contains many subaerial disconformities characterized by profiles ranging from undercoal solution horizons to palaeokarsts. Incised fluvial channels are reported at two stratigraphic levels to the west of the study area. The deepest incisions developed from the Kholm Disconformity (top of the Mikhailov Formation). This disconformity also exhibits the deepest palaeokarst profile and represents the major hiatus in the Oka–Zaborie succession. The new sea‐level curve presented herein shows two major cycles separated by the Kholm Unconformity at the Mikhailov/Venev boundary. The Lower Serpukhovian transgression moved the base‐level away from falling below the seafloor so that the section becomes conformable above the Forino Disconformity (lower Tarusa). The maximum deepening is interpreted to occur in the lower dark‐shale part of the Gurovo Formation. The base of the Serpukhovian Stage is defined by FADs of the conodont Lochriea ziegleri and the foraminifer Janischewskina delicata in the middle of the sequence VN2. The Aleksinian–Mikhailovian interval is provisionally correlated with the Asbian (Lower–Middle Warnantian) in Western Europe. Based on FODs of Janischewskina typica and first representatives of Climacammina, the Venevian is correlated with the Brigantian in Western Europe. The Tarusian–Protvian interval contains diverse fusulinid and conodont assemblages, but few forms suitable for international correlation. FADs of the zonal conodont species Adetognathus unicornis and Gnathodus bollandensis at several metres above the Protvian base suggest correlation of the entire Zaborie Group and may be the basal Protvian to the Pendleian. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological JournalSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207