MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why is stromatactis so rare in Mesozoic carbonate mud mounds?

2001· article· en· W2107642068 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPaleozoicGeologyMesozoicCarbonateSedimentary rockDiagenesisPaleontologySpongeCarbonate rockSedimentStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sedimentary–diagenetic structure stromatactis is widespread in Palaeozoic spiculitic carbonate mud mounds, but occurs only sporadically in Mesozoic sponge carbonate mud mounds. Comparative analysis of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic stromatactis limestones suggests that this variation results from the degree of siliceous sponge skeletal rigidity and the amount of internal sediment accumulation in the original cavity network. Partial to entire filling by internal sediment resulted in a continuum, from a small amount of internal sediment and large amount of cement (stromatactis, common in the Palaeozoic), to only internal sediments (aborted stromatactis, common in the Mesozoic). These observations match independent lines of evidence concerning the siliceous sponge evolution and sediment recycling (e.g. bioerosion) across the Palaeozoic to Mesozoic biotic revolution.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.218 · 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