An example of a highly bioturbated, storm‐influenced shoreface deposit: Upper Jurassic Ula Formation, Norwegian North Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Integrated ichnological and sedimentological analyses of core samples from the Upper Jurassic Ula Formation in the Norwegian Central Graben were undertaken to quantify the influence of storm waves on sedimentation. Two main facies associations (offshore and shoreface) that form a progradational coarsening upward succession are recognizable within the cores. The offshore deposits are characterized by massive to finely laminated mudstones and fine‐grained sandstones, within a moderately to highly bioturbated complex. The trace fossil assemblage is dominated by deposit‐feeding structures (for example, Planolites , Phycosiphon and Rosselia ) and constitutes an expression of the proximal Zoophycos to distal Cruziana ichnofacies. The absence of grazing behaviours and dominance of deposit‐feeding ichnofossils is a reflection of the increased wave energies present (i.e. storm‐generated currents) within an offshore setting. The shoreface succession is represented by highly bioturbated fine‐grained to medium‐grained sandstones, with intervals of planar and trough cross‐bedding, thin pebble lags and bivalve‐rich shell layers. The ichnofossil assemblage, forming part of the Skolithos ichnofacies, is dominated by higher energy Ophiomorpha nodosa ichnofossils and lower energy Ophiomorpha irregulaire and Siphonichnus ichnofossils. The presence of sporadic wave‐generated sedimentary structures and variability in ichnofossil diversity and abundance attests to the influence of storm‐generated currents during deposition. As a whole, the Ula Formation strongly reflects the influence of storm deposits on sediment deposition; consequently, storm‐influenced shoreface most accurately describes these depositional environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".