REPLY: MARINE INFLUENCE IN THE UPPER ORDOVICIAN JUNIATA FORMATION (POTTERS MILLS, PENNSYLVANIA): IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HISTORY OF LIFE ON LAND: PALAIOS, v. 25, no. 8, p. 527–539, 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Retallack (2011) for his comment on the paper by Davies et al. (2010). Davies et al. (2010) cast doubts on the terrestrial interpretation of trace-fossil bearing strata of the Ordovician Juniata Formation and thus on their applicability to the study of early terrestrial ecosystems. We do not think that Retallack's (2011) comment on this paper dispels these doubts, for the reasons listed herein. If sedimentary facies analysis were as straightforward as inferred by Retallack (2011) in the first paragraph of his comment, then it would be easy to determine, one way or another, the depositional environment of the sedimentary succession at Potters Mills. Although Retallack (2011) implies that such phenomena as “turbidites, hummocky cross-bedding, and flaser and lenticular bedding” are diagnostic of marine conditions, none of them are (e.g., Greenwood and Sherman, 1986; Martin, 2000). We highlight this misapprehension to emphasize that sedimentary structures generated by hydrodynamic processes are rarely diagnostic of particular environments and must be used to this end with great caution. In the case of the Juniata Formation at Potters Mills, as illustrated by Davies et al. (2010), there are no physical sedimentary structures in the succession that are diagnostic of any specific depositional environment, marine or continental. This observation alone casts doubt on studies that have previously offered firm sedimentological interpretations of the Potters Mills succession. Retallack (2011) is correct to point out that better exposed outcrops of parts of the Juniata Formation have permitted interpretations of deposition within braided fluvial systems (Cotter, 1978), but fluvial deposition does not account for the whole formation (e.g., Thompson, 1970; Driese and Foreman, 1991, 1992; Ettensohn, 2004; Davies et al., 2011). Our contention remains that while sedimentological signatures in the Potters Mills section do not permit unequivocal diagnosis of either …
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".