A Triassic Upwelling Zone: The Shublik Formation, Arctic Alaska, U.S.A.—Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parrish et al. (2001) recently described various facies from the Triassic Shublik Formation of northern Alaska and emphasized the presence of phosphate, glauconite, and a high content of organic carbon in the strata. They interpreted the Shublik Formation as having been deposited under the influence of an upwelling zone on the basis of these distinctive lithologic attributes and hence the title of their article. We wish to point out that, whereas such lithologies may possibly point to upwelling conditions, they certainly do not provide solid proof for the former existence of such a depositional setting. We base this statement on the nature of equivalent strata in adjacent Arctic areas, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Svalbard, which are briefly described below. First of all it is necessary to comment on the stratigraphic data provided by Parrish et al. (2001) for the Shublik Formation of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (NPRA-ANWR) of northern Alaska. They state, The Shublik Formation is Upper Triassic (Carnian-Norian) whereas in the accompanying Fig. 1 they illustrate that the Shublik Formation of NPRA and ANWR ranges in age from mid-Early Triassic to Late Triassic. Unfortunately both of these age designations are unsubstantiated. Detterman et al. (1975) established that the Shublik Formation of northeastern Alaska ranges in age from early Middle Triassic (Anisian) to Late Triassic (Norian) (see their figure 4). This age range is important because the contact of the Shublik Formation with the underlying Ivishak Formation appears to mark a significant, Arctic-wide sequence boundary that coincides approximately with the Early-Middle Triassic boundary (Bird and Molenaar 1987; Embry 1989). Furthermore, the upper contact of the Shublik Formation with …
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".