Lateral variability in shallow marine ichnofabrics: implications for the ichnofabric analysis method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ichnological analysis, commonly undertaken both in the field and in core studies, is generally carried out in vertical logged successions. This work documents the results of a detailed ichnofabric study of two highly bioturbated sandstone beds separated by a mudstone, within the thick, Lower Jurassic succession of the Yorkshire coast, UK. The two sandstone beds contain relicts of hummocky cross-stratification and rare bioclasts of bivalves and belemnites. Bioturbation of the beds is intense and the diversity of trace fossils is considerable. Trace fossils present include Teichichnus rectus , Teichichnus isp. A, Thalassinoides isp., Palaeophycus heberti , Diplocraterion parallelum , Rhizocorallium , Rosselia socialis , Schaubcylindrichnus isp., Chondrites isp., Planolites isp. and Phycosiphon incertum . Ichnofabrics were studied at 5 m intervals parallel to the modern cliff-line, which is parallel to the inferred Jurassic palaeo-coastline. The results demonstrate that there is considerable patchiness to ichnofabric even in a comparatively simple depositional setting such as a storm-influenced shelf. This observation is in line with studies of the modern sea floor. The implications of patchiness in ichnofabric are broad-ranging, but most importantly suggest that caution is needed in the use of ichnofabric analysis for intra-regional correlations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".