Sedimentology and palaeogeomorphology of four large valley systems incising delta plains, western Canada Foreland Basin: implications for mid‐Cretaceous sea‐level changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mid‐Cenomanian Dunvegan Formation represents a delta complex deposited on a foreland basin ramp over about 2 my. The Dunvegan is divided into 10 transgressive–regressive allomembers, labelled J–A in ascending order, each defined by regional marine transgressive surfaces. Parasequences within allomembers show an aggradational to offlapping stacking pattern that reflects alternate generation and removal of accommodation. The upper surfaces of allomembers H–E are incised by extensive valley systems traceable for up to 320 km and over about 50 000 km2. Valley depths range up to 41 m and can change significantly over short distances. However, the average depth of incision (mean 21 m) shows no systematic variation in longitudinal profiles and no evidence of headward shallowing. Valleys are typically 1–2 km wide, but locally widen to about 8 km. Widening is sometimes associated with confluence zones, but elsewhere it is not. Updip reaches of valleys are dominated by cross‐bedded fluvial sandstone forming multistorey point‐bar deposits. Sandstones contain widespread but uncommon paired carbonaceous drapes recognizable as tidal bundles. Inclined heterolithic stratification is locally well developed at the top of the valley fill. Downdip reaches of valleys, typically within 50 km of the lowstand shoreline, have a sandstone‐dominated lower part and, locally, a mud‐rich upper portion consisting of a variety of laminated heterolithic facies with a clear tidal signature. These heterolithic deposits may represent central basin, tidal flat, bayhead delta and point‐bar environments. Valley filling took place mainly during the transgressive systems tract (TST) when tidally influenced environments migrated upvalley. Semi‐diurnal tidal backwater effects extended at least 30 km landward of the regional maximum transgressive marine shoreline. The aggradational late TST and highstand systems tract (HST) includes deltaic and coastal plain deposits comprising lake and anastomosed river deposits that suggest a very low gradient (≈ 1:3000). Delta parasequences of the falling stage systems tract (FSST) offlap seaward and have no equivalent coastal plain deposits. The FSST has an average width of 60 km and an inferred gradient of 1:2500. The upper surfaces of the HST and FSST are extensively incised by valleys. The lowstand systems tract (LST) is subtly aggradational, lacks valleys and is characterized by large delta lobes fed by major distributaries. The width and inferred slope of the FSST, coupled with the thickness of aggradational TST and HST deposits on the coastal plain, suggest a vertical accommodation of about 35 m per transgressive event. About 11 m of this is attributed to isostatic subsidence resulting from water and sediment loads; the residual 24 m is attributed to eustatic rise. This sea‐level change is of the same order of magnitude as the valley depths. The length of valleys, however, does not seem to be explicable solely in terms of downstream forcing by sea‐level change, and an additional, upstream‐forcing mechanism, possibly related to precipitation cycles in the Milankovitch band, might be inferred.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".