MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074012580 · doi:10.1144/0016-76492007-023

Sedimentation of the Phyllopod Bed within the Cambrian Burgess Shale Formation of British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2074012580 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah E. Gabbott, Jan Zalasiewicz, Desmond Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOil shaleSedimentationPaleontologyClastic rockGeochemistrySedimentary rockGeomorphologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide the most detailed sedimentological log to date through the Phyllopod Bed of the mid-Cambrian Burgess Shale Formation of British Columbia, based on millimetre-scale logging of a suite of thin sections. The sedimentary facies is dominated by alternations of homogeneous mudstone and a coarser-grained, laminated, variably sandy and shelly mudstone that is locally micronodular. Most boundaries between these two lithologies are gradational, and discrete fining-upwards turbidite units were rarely recognized. Such a pattern is interpreted to indicate rapid sedimentation of up to decimetre-thick units at this location from pulsatory, quasi-continuous density currents consistent with earlier proposals of exceptional preservation through rapid burial; the density currents responsible were probably largely akin to mud-rich slurries, helping explain the transport and entombment of the fossils. The homogeneous mudstone units are characterized by numerous distinctive lenses of pyrite framboids or subeuhedral crystals, previously interpreted as small ripples. Their 3D shape, however, suggests an origin as subspherical early diagenetic aggregates; their present morphology is consistent with the high levels of compaction inferred from the preservation of fossils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207