MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089309076 · doi:10.1139/e04-026

The Lower Devonian Compton Formation in southern Quebec: from delta front to pro-delta sedimentation

2004· article· en· W2089309076 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Denis Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsGeologyDevonianDeltaFaciesPaleontologySedimentary rockConglomerateFront (military)GeochemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lower Devonian Compton Formation is the uppermost unit of the St. Francis Group in the Connecticut Valley – Gaspé synclinorium of southern Quebec. The Compton Formation is composed of three informal members. Five distinct sedimentary facies have been recognized in the lower two members of the Compton Formation. High-energy, shallow-marine, and channel sands dominate the Milan member. The overlying Lac Drolet member consists of below wave base mud and silt deposits with abundant turbidite sand. The Milan member is interpreted to represent deposits of a river-dominated delta-front environment, whereas the Lac Drolet member is suggestive of below storm-wave base pro-delta deposits. The transition from the Milan member to the Lac Drolet member is correlated with the deepening event recognized in coeval succession in the Gaspé Peninsula and known as the T2 event. There, the coeval Indian Point Formation is interpreted to represent pro-delta sediments. The new paleogeographic map for the Lochkovian illustrates the development of deltaic lobes from northern Gaspé to southern Quebec. In Lochkovian, deltaic regimes were established in southern Quebec and northeastern Gaspé, whereas the intervening successions (western Gaspé Peninsula – New Brunswick) experienced significant synsedimentary tectonic collapse.

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 score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207