Tectonics of sedimentary basins, recent advances by Cathy Busby and Antonio Azor Perez. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2012. No. of pages: 664. Price US$149.99. ISBN 978-1-4051-9465-5 (hardback).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I had a sketchy memory of the old Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins, edited by Cathy Busby and Raymond Ingersoll, and published by Blackwell in 1995, since neither myself nor our library had a copy. No matter, the preface to the new Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins, Recent Advances provides directions for online access to the original (well done to the publisher for making it freely available) and recommends that book for undergraduates, with the new book considered more appropriate for advanced researchers. To an extent, this is good advice. The revision is more expansive in contributions and number of speciality topics. Thirteen chapters in the original have now become 31. Neatly arranged into five ‘parts’, topics range from U–Pb geochronology, cosmogenic nuclides, magnetostratigraphy and 3D-seismic interpretation (Part 2), to rift basins, intracontinental transtensional basins, and passive margins (Part 3), forearc basins, transtensional continental arcs and foreland basins (Part 4), and interior poly-phase basins and cratonic basins (Part 5), with examples including the Laramides and SW USA, East Africa, Atlantic margins, Western Canada, Andes and Tibet … and that is not even an exhaustive list! These four parts are preceded by an excellent introduction to the tectonics of sedimentary basins in a chapter by Ingersoll. However, a revised (and useful) nomenclature is presented in this introduction, but this renders obsolete some of the terminology that is in the precursor text. In this instance, the advice directing undergraduates to the old text is less useful; the students would end up confused, learning out-of-date terms and material. There are some weaknesses. There is always going to be a limit as to how many subjects can be covered in detail (the book is already a hefty tome) and editors are not always successful in getting contributions from leading experts in every relevant subject area. But I would have liked to have seen more of the selected case studies illustrating changing sedimentation with evolution of the tectonic regime and more relating to sedimentation in settings where the tectonic interpretation or influence is more contentious. The impression this reader got was that everything fits too neatly into particular classifications. Readers looking for significant information on salt tectonics will again be disappointed. Certainly such subject matter does not easily fit into a single plate-tectonic classification so, with better coverage, it would probably need its own ‘part’. However, I think a ‘part’ on salt rather than a ‘part’ on techniques and modelling would have produced a more focused product. And I have one major complaint. The book has many large, often colourful, clear and well-proportioned diagrams, yet photographs of stunning outcrop are often reduced to small quarter page, or less, scale. Good observations lead to better interpretations and models. So let us see the rocks! Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile addition to any sedimentologist's library.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".