Cryptic sequence boundaries in braided fluvial successions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In braided fluvial deposits, consisting of monotonous successions of sandstone or conglomerate, it may be difficult to distinguish regionally significant bounding surfaces (sequence boundaries) from autogenic channel‐scour surfaces. Major surfaces may be characterized by erosional relief and draped by lag deposits, but not all sequence boundaries show these characteristics. Other clues to the presence of a major surface are sharp changes in detrital composition, shifts in regional palaeocurrent trends and evidence of early diagenesis of the sandstones immediately below the sequence boundary. Examples of these attributes of cryptic sequence boundaries are illustrated from three Mesozoic units in the Colorado Plateau area of the United States. In the Chinle Formation (Triassic), near Moab, Utah, angular intraformational unconformities overlie sandstones showing evidence of early diagenesis. In the Castlegate Sandstone (Upper Cretaceous) of east‐central Utah, a cryptic sequence boundary can be discriminated from other erosion surfaces by the evidence of detrital petrography and early diagenesis. Palaeocurrent data indicate changes in regional palaeoslope at two sequence boundaries within this unit. Evidence of early diagenesis is also present at a sequence boundary in the Kayenta Formation (Jurassic) of westernmost Colorado.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".