MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2161031575 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2014-0136

Assessing the age of the Late Cretaceous Danek Bonebed with U–Pb geochronology

2014· article· en· W2161031575 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joshua H.F.L. Davies, Jörn‐Frederik Wotzlaw, Alexander P. Wolfe, Larry M. Heaman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeochronologyGeologyZirconCretaceousPaleontologyPrecambrianProvenanceArcheanDetritusGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ash-rich volcaniclastic sandstone immediately underlying dinosaur-rich material from the Danek Bonebed in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (HCF), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, contains accessory zircon, which have been dated employing U–Pb geochronology. Both laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and chemical abrasion isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry (ID-TIMS) U–Pb analyses have been conducted. The zircon age distributions are complex with U–Pb dates ranging from Precambrian to Cretaceous. We consider the youngest ID-TIMS 206Pb/238U date of 71.923 ± 0.068 Ma as the maximum deposition age of the ash-rich sandstone, placing the overlying Danek bonebed in the early Maastrichtian. This age is compatible with the paleontological assemblage from the Danek Bonebed and the regional stratigraphy. The zircon age distribution also implies that the HCF had a complex provenance of the detritus with some Archean and Proterozoic zircons, a group of Mesozoic, and a large compliment of Cretaceous grains. The results highlight the importance of high precision geochronology in constraining the age of important fossil deposits such as the Danek Bonebed.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→