MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current-scattered (?) detrital remanence directions in the Zn-rich Pennsylvanian Stark black shale, USA

2007· article· en· W1975069722 on OpenAlexaff
Kazuo Kawasaki, D. T. A. Symons, Raymond M. Coveney

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPennsylvanianGeologyOil shalePaleontologyGeophysicsMineralogyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palaeomagnetic results are reported from the metalliferous Stark black shale in the Upper Pennsylvanian (Missourian/Kasimovian) Kansas City Group. Palaeomagnetic analysis of 400 specimens from 28 sites gives a characteristic remanent magnetization in 17 sites of the shale that yields a Late Mississippian to Middle Pennsylvanian palaeopole at 32.2°N 128.5°E (dp = 4.7° and dm = 8.8°). The observed palaeomagnetic age is slightly older than the host rock, indicating that the mineralization of the Stark Shale has, excluding recent alteration, a primary sedimentary or syngenetic origin. The reason for the slightly older age is likely due to trace modern hematite that slightly steepens the remanence inclination. The large oval of 95 per cent confidence is interpreted to be caused by clay—magnetite aggregates that formed during sediment transport and the biasing effect of the gentle palaeocurrent at each site acting on the large aggregates. Therefore, the scattered distribution of the site mean remanence declinations found for the Stark Shale is evidence of a detrital remanent magnetization that is formed by primary sedimentary processes with an enriched metallic content and not remagnetization with mineralization by secondary hydrothermal processes.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207