MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993610346 · doi:10.1111/ter.12150

Tectonically induced change in lake evolution recorded by seismites in the Eocene Green River Formation, Wyoming

2015· article· en· W1993610346 on OpenAlexafffund
Balázs Töró, Brian R. Pratt, Robin W. Renaut

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSociety for Sedimentary GeologyAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists
KeywordsGeologySedimentary depositional environmentLithificationSedimentary rockTectonicsBrecciaSedimentSedimentationPaleontologySedimentary structuresGeomorphologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seismogenic sedimentary structures – seismites – provide an opportunity to understand the effects of syndepositional tectonics on lacustrine sedimentation. The lowermost Wilkins Peak Member (Eocene Green River Formation, Wyoming, USA) contains laterally extensive intervals displaying folds, load structures, mixed brittle–ductile deformation, microfaults, breccias and sedimentary dykes, which formed intrastratally in a low‐energy, sublittoral lacustrine environment. They developed in situ by liquefaction and plastic or brittle behaviour of semi‐lithified sediment, or by remobilization and injection of granular material. Their morphological attributes and lateral extent, zonation in deformation intensity and the depositional setting all imply deformation triggered by earthquake‐induced stresses in shallow‐buried sediment. Their stratigraphic distribution coincides with a shift in hydrological conditions from a balanced‐filled to an underfilled lake type, independent of climate change. This study is the first to ascribe seismites to a pulse of tectonic activity that caused a synchronous change in lacustrine evolution.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207