The significance of multiple causes and coincidence in the geological record: from clam clusters to Cretaceous catastrophe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specific causes of unusual events recorded in the geological record are commonly difficult to distinguish and isolate; in some instances, event strata contain features that cannot be explained by a single causal mechanism. Unicausal hypotheses, when applied to complex problems, can lead to the misidentification, misinterpretation, and force-fitting of observations ("great expectations syndrome"). The close timing or temporal overlap of significant events, although statistically improbable on short time scales, becomes possible on long time scales. Event coincidence may occur on a wide range of scales, from local to global. On the local scale, a multiple-event interpretation is offered for both the concentration and clustering of bivalves at specific levels within the Upper Cretaceous Bearpaw Formation of southern Alberta. For this example, the relative timing of fluctuations in benthic substrate texture, oxygen concentration, abundance of planktotrophic larvae, and degree of sea-floor scouring was crucial to the formation and preservation of shell concentrations. On the sharply contrasted global scale, the implications of multiple events warrant much closer consideration than they have received hitherto in terms of major proposed causes for the CretaceousTertiary (KT) mass-extinction event: bolide impact, sea-level change, climatic change, and flood-basalt volcanism. By considering the predictable effects of these synchronous factors, both individually and in combination, a multiple-cause explanation of the KT mass extinction emerges as entirely plausible. Certainly it needs to be considered in all future investigations of this important issue.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".