Firmness Profiles Associated with Tidal-Creek Deposits: The Temporal Significance of <i>Glossifungites</i> Assemblages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indentation tests are used to detail firmness profiles from intertidal creek deposits and wave-exhumed substrates at Willapa Bay. Both of these sedimentological settings are characterized by occurrences of modern Glossifungites assemblages. Firm substrates associated with the intertidal-creek deposits are derived from dewatered modern sediments, whereas firmgrounds associated with wave erosion consist of dewatered and compacted Pleistocene strata. The Pleistocene firmgrounds are notably firmer than those derived from modern deposits. A strong correlation between sediment firmness and burrowing behavior is evident in these deposits. In tidal-creek systems, the comparatively firm cutbank is characterized by unlined, large-diameter, open burrows that form a Glossifungites assemblage. Intertidal point-bar deposits contain a softground suite consisting of mucous-lined, small-diameter, dominantly vertical traces. Finally, a softground suite of robust, mucous- or mud-lined, vertical and horizontal traces are observed in intertidal-flat deposits. In contrast, Pleistocene firmgrounds generally contain large- and small-diameter traces, with dominantly vertical architectures (Thalassinoides-, Gastrochaenolites-, Diplocraterion-, or Arenicolites-like burrows), depending upon the firmness of the substrate. Glossifungites occurrences on modern firmgrounds are temporally insignificant, whereas similar occurrences in Pleistocene substrates are temporally significant. Contrasting these two databases suggests that the stratigraphic significance of a Glossifungites-demarcated discontinuity can be assessed in the rock record. Several criteria that are useful for identifying temporally significant surfaces are suggested, including: absence of compaction of the Glossifungites assemblage; presence of well-preserved burrow sculptings; and planar to gently undulatory erosional surfaces as opposed to surfaces with notable topographic relief. Conceptual models demonstrate that muddy substrates potentially require several millennia to compact and dewater. Sandy deposits, on the other hand, have indeterminate significance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".