Depositional facies analysis and modeling of the Judy Creek reef complex of the Upper Devonian Swan Hills, Alberta, Canada: Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2nd revised manuscript received February 17, 2010 Jack Wendte The article of Ma et al. (2009) in the September 2009 issue of the Bulletin fails to provide credible evidence or to cite references to support the stratigraphic framework and facies analysis on which their numerical modeling of the Judy Creek reef complex is based. Ma et al. (2009) subdivide the reef into a lower rimmed reef phase, consisting of the R1, R2, R3, and R4 cycles, and an upper ramp-bounded shoal complex, consisting of the R5A, R5B, and R5C cycles (p. 1238, 2d and 3d paragraphs). However, they do not present evidence or cite references to support these subdivisions. In the Wendte (1992) article, I subdivided the reef reservoir into two main phases of growth, an underlying rimmed-reef phase approximately 43 m (∼140 ft) thick and an overlying ramp-bounded shoal complex, up to 30 m (100 ft) thick, separated by a subaerial unconformity that I termed R4. The top of the ramp-bounded shoal complex …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".