Late Wisconsinan stratigraphy and chronology of southern St. George's Bay, Newfoundland: a re-appraisal: Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sedimentological model has been presented by Bell et al. (2001) to explain the stratigraphy and chronology of glacigenic sediments at localities in southern St. George’s Bay, west Newfoundland. These authors claim that this model succeeds earlier interpretations of the sediments at these localities made by MacClintock and Twenhofel (1940) and Brookes (1969, 1974, 1977 a ), and, by implication, find fault with the history of late-glacial relative sea level for these localities and the wider area presented in Brookes (1974, 1977 a ) and, with some revision, in Forbes et al. (1993). This note draws attention to two points of difference I have with Bell et al. (2001) at the local and regional scales, namely the applicability of the adopted sedimentological model and the relation of the sediments concerned to late-glacial sea level. MacClintock and Twenhofel (1940) presented an inventory and interpretation of glacial and associated sediments exposed in tens of kilometres of coastal cliffs around St. George’s Bay (well portrayed in Bell et al. 2001, fig. 4). They divided the sediments into ( i ) a compact basal till, low in the cliffs, overlain in places by kame gravels — named “St. George’s River Drift,” ( ii ) an overlying marine sequence, comprising lower muds and higher deltaic sands and gravels, in places underlying a delta surface — named “Bay St. George Delta,” and ( iii ) in a few places, an upper unit of till and kame gravel, with morainic topography — named “Robinsons Head Drift.” The sequence was interpreted to have resulted from an ice advance beyond the present coast of the bay, followed by ice retreat and local stagnation at the present coast, then by marine submergence, and, finally, an ice readvance in several lobes across the present coastline into the sea and sediments previously deposited in it. Brookes (1969, 1974, 1977 …
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".