MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149372751 · doi:10.1111/sed.12124

A depositional model for hydromagnesite–magnesite playas near Atlin, British Columbia, Canada

2014· article· en· W2149372751 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ian Power, Sasha Wilson, Anna L. Harrison, Gregory M. Dipple, Jenine McCutcheon, Gordon Southam, Paul A. Kenward

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
KeywordsGeologyCarbonateMagnesiteSedimentary depositional environmentCarbonate mineralsGeochemistryDolomiteMineralogyGeomorphologyMagnesium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study formulates a comprehensive depositional model for hydromagnesite–magnesite playas. Mineralogical, isotopic and hydrogeochemical data are coupled with electron microscopy and field observations of the hydromagnesite–magnesite playas near Atlin, British Columbia, Canada. Four surface environments are recognized: wetlands, grasslands, localized mounds (metre‐scale) and amalgamated mounds composed primarily of hydromagnesite [Mg 5 ( CO 3 ) 4 ( OH ) 2 ·4H 2 O], which are interpreted to represent stages in playa genesis. Water chemistry, precipitation kinetics and depositional environment are primary controls on sediment mineralogy. At depth (average ≈ 2 m), Ca–Mg‐carbonate sediments overlay early Holocene glaciolacustrine sediments indicating deposition within a lake post‐deglaciation. This mineralogical change corresponds to a shift from siliciclastic to chemical carbonate deposition as the supply of fresh surface water (for example, glacier meltwater) ceased and was replaced by alkaline groundwater. Weathering of ultramafic bedrock in the region produces Mg– HCO 3 groundwater that concentrates by evaporation upon discharging into closed basins, occupied by the playas. An uppermost unit of Mg‐carbonate sediments (hydromagnesite mounds) overlies the Ca–Mg‐carbonate sediments. This second mineralogical shift corresponds to a change in the depositional environment from subaqueous to subaerial, occurring once sediments ‘emerged’ from the water surface. Capillary action and evaporation draw Mg– HCO 3 water up towards the ground surface, precipitating Mg‐carbonate minerals. Evaporation at the water table causes precipitation of lansfordite [Mg CO 3 ·5H 2 O] which partially cements pre‐existing sediments forming a hardpan. As carbonate deposition continues, the weight of the overlying sediments causes compaction and minor lateral movement of the mounds leading to amalgamation of localized mounds. Radiocarbon dating of buried vegetation at the Ca–Mg‐carbonate boundary indicates that there has been ca 8000 years of continuous Mg‐carbonate deposition at a rate of 0·4 mm yr −1 . The depositional model accounts for the many sedimentological, mineralogical and geochemical processes that occur in the four surface environments; elucidating past and present carbonate deposition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207