Stratigraphic Record of River-Dominated Crevasse Subdeltas With Tidal Influence (Lajas Formation, Argentina)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Crevasse subdeltas develop on modern river-dominated delta plains, and may be affected by the interaction of river currents and marine processes. However, their sedimentology and stratigraphic architecture is poorly constrained, leading to simplistic depositional models of delta-plain systems in the ancient record. Extensive exposures of the Middle Jurassic Lajas Formation permit the architecture, main stratigraphic surfaces, and lateral and vertical facies variations of crevasse subdelta deposits to be constrained. Lower-delta-plain successions studied in the Lajas Formation consist of up to 5-m-thick distributary channels and interdistributary-bay deposits, interpreted as crevasse subdeltas. Crevasse subdelta deposits consist of small-scale lenticular units (∼ 1–2 m thick) interpreted as crevasse channels and upward-coarsening and upward-thickening packages (∼ 2 m thick) with clinothems interpreted as crevasse mouth bars. These deposits preserve interbedding of coarser and finer sediments that are interpreted as river flood and interflood couplets associated with variations in river discharge. River flood beds are commonly structureless and erosionally based, and show little evidence of tidal action and brackish-water conditions. Interflood deposits show rhythmically distributed mudstone drapes, bimodality, and brackish trace fossils. This study highlights an important but largely undocumented component of interdistributary deposits consisting of tide-influenced, but strongly river-dominated, prograding depositional bodies. An implication is that some coarsening-upward, forward-accreting units previously interpreted from the rock record as interchannel “tidal bars” may instead represent minor mouth bars of tide-influenced crevasse subdeltas. Furthermore, present-day crevasse subdeltas are restricted to river-dominated delta systems that flow into semi-enclosed or enclosed seas and lakes with microtidal conditions and limited wave action, which is comparable to paleogeographic reconstructions for the Neuquén Basin during the Middle Jurassic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".