Sequence analysis of the Ecca--Beaufort contact in the southern Karoo of South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| March 01, 2000 Sequence analysis of the Ecca—Beaufort contact in the southern Karoo of South Africa B.S. Rubidge; B.S. Rubidge Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research, University of the Witwatersrand, P.O. Wits, 2050 Republic of South Africa, E-mail: l06gar@cosmos.wits.ac.za Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar P.J. Hancox; P.J. Hancox Geology Department, University of the Witwatersrand, P.O. Wits, 2050 Republic of South Africa, E-mail: O65pjh@cosmos.wits.ac.za Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar O. Catuneanu O. Catuneanu University of Alberta, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,1-26 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E3, Canada, E-mail: octavian@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar South African Journal of Geology (2000) 103 (1): 81–96. https://doi.org/10.2113/103.1.81 Article history accepted: 08 May 2000 first online: 07 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation B.S. Rubidge, P.J. Hancox, O. Catuneanu; Sequence analysis of the Ecca—Beaufort contact in the southern Karoo of South Africa. South African Journal of Geology 2000;; 103 (1): 81–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/103.1.81 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietySouth African Journal of Geology Search Advanced Search Abstract Sequence analysis of the Ecca—Beaufort boundary in the southern Karoo Basin has revealed three separate facies associations spanning the stratigraphic interval between the top of the Fort Brown Formation and the lowermost maroon mudrocks of the Beaufort Group. This sequence was deposited in prodelta, delta front, and delta plain environments respectively. The lithological contact between the rocks deposited in the delta front and delta plain represents the palaeoshoreline, and occurs only once in the stratigraphic sequence, suggesting a continuous normal regression from Ecca to Beaufort times. This diachronous shoreline is associated with deltaic progradation within ahighstand systems tract. Sediment deposition was mainly a result of ephemeral flash floods, but perennial rivers also flowed from melting ice-capped highlands to the palaeosouth. Two separate fossil associations have been recognized and correlate with the lithological subdivisions. The lower fossil assemblage occurs in the Fort Brown andWaterford formationsand is characterized by silicified wood, comminuted plant material, and fish scales. The upper association occurs only in the lower Beaufort Group and includes in situ equisitalean, and well-preserved Glossopteris plant fossils and tetrapods of the Eodicynodon Assemblage Zone. The Beaufort—Ecca boundary coincides with the position of the palaeoshoreline. This lithological contact also marks achange in depositional style and palaeontological character between the two groups. The new placementof the boundary is some 300— 650m below the presently mapped contact in the south of the basin. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".