Correlation of Grassy Lake and Cedar Lake ambers using infrared spectroscopy, stable isotopes, and palaeoentomology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Late Cretaceous Grassy Lake and Cedar Lake amber deposits of western Canada are among North America’s most famous amber-producing localities. Although it has been suggested for over a century that Cedar Lake amber from western Manitoba may be a secondary deposit having originated from strata in Alberta, this hypothesis has not been tested explicitly using geochemical fingerprinting coupled to comparative analyses of arthropod faunal content. Although there are many amber-containing horizons associated with Cretaceous coals throughout Alberta, most are thermally mature and brittle, thus lacking the resilience to survive long distance transport while preserving intact biotic inclusions. One of the few exceptions is the amber found in situ at Grassy Lake. We present a suite of new analyses from these and other Late Cretaceous ambers from western Canada, including stable isotopes (H and C), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra, and an updated faunal compendium for the Grassy and Cedar lakes arthropod assemblages. When combined with amber’s physical properties and stratigraphic constraints, the results of these analyses confirm that Cedar Lake amber is derived directly from the Grassy Lake amber deposit or an immediate correlative equivalent. This enables the palaeoenvironmental context of Grassy Lake amber to be extended to the Cedar Lake deposit, making possible a more inclusive survey of Cretaceous arthropod faunas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".