MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061283094 · doi:10.1144/m36.37

Chapter 37 The record of Neoproterozoic glaciations in the Windermere Supergroup, southern Canadian Cordillera

2011· article· en· W2061283094 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark David Smith, Emmanuelle Arnaud, R. W. C. Arnott, Gerald M. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Memoirs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiamictiteSiltstoneConglomerateGeologyUnconformityPaleontologySedimentary rockRiftDalradianSupergroupGeochemistryMetamorphismClastic rockTectonicsFaciesStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Neoproterozoic Windermere Supergroup (WSG) is exposed over an area of 35 000 km 2 in the southern Canadian Cordillera, and consists primarily of deep-marine meta-sedimentary rocks interpreted to have been deposited during rifting and subsequent post-rift thermal relaxation. The main exposures of the WSG occur within thrust panels and structural culminations of the eastern Cordilleran orogen. Within the thick stratigraphic succession ( c. 9 km) are three units of glaciogenic affinity: Toby, Vreeland and Old Fort Point (OFP) formations. The Toby Formation (Fm.) is composed of up to 2500 m of diamictite, interbedded with conglomerate, sandstone, mudstone, carbonate and mafic volcanic rocks. The Vreeland Formation ranges from 350 m to 2000 m in thickness and consists of diamictite, interbedded with mudstone, sandstone and conglomerate. The OFP ranges from 60 to 450 m in thickness and consists of a distinctive threefold stratigraphic package of basal siltstone grading upward into limestone–siltstone rhythmite, organic-rich mudstone and an overlying heterolithic unit of diamictite, breccia, conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone to mudstone and limestone. A locally prominent unconformity marks the base of the OFP upper member. Both the Toby and Vreeland formations represent remobilized glacially derived marine sediments deposited by sediment-gravity flows. Deposition of the Toby Fm. was fault-controlled during an active tectonic phase (rifting), whereas the Vreeland Fm. accumulated during the subsequent quiescent phase (post-rift) with limited structural control. The OFP is interpreted to be a regionally extensive deep-marine post-glacial marker temporally associated with the glaciogenic Vreeland Fm. Although direct geochronological ages for WSG units in southwestern Canada are generally absent, high-precision radiometric ages of underlying and overlying igneous events constrain the relative maximum and minimum timing of deposition from c. 740–728 Ma to c. 569 Ma. At the base of the WSG succession, the Toby Fm. may be as young as c. 685 Ma based on ages obtained from potential stratigraphic correlatives in the USA. There is no direct age constraint for the deposition of the Vreeland Fm.; its minimum timing is based on its stratigraphic relationship with the post-glacial OFP. The middle member of the OFP was precisely dated at 607.8±4.7 Ma using the Re–Os method, placing it in the Ediacaran Period. Published geochemical and stable isotopic data are similarly limited for all three units with only some δ 34 S py values available from one section of the OFP. Recent work has focused on detailed sedimentological and stratigraphic studies of the Toby and OFP formations with future efforts being directed towards integrated geochemical and isotopic research. Additional geochronological constraints are needed to refine palaeogeographical models and strengthen regional correlations with other North American Cordilleran glaciogenic units.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London MemoirsSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207