MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2181791807

Tidal-Fluvial and Wave-Dominated Estuarine Valley Fills: Ichnological- Sedimentological-Palynological Comparison of Central Basin and Lateral Accretion Deposits, Lower Cretaceous Glauconite and Viking Formations, Central Alberta

2011· article· en· W2181791807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan C. Jamer, James A. MacEachern, Shahin E. Dashtgard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFaciesSedimentary depositional environmentFluvialPaleontologyGlauconiteStructural basinEstuaryAccretion (finance)Oceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Data Sources This study documents palynomorphs recovered from estuarine valley fills, and evaluates their paleoecological implications with respect to ichnologic and sedimentologic aspects of the depositional facies. Estuarine valley fills are major hydrocarbon producers in the Lower Albian Glauconite Formation and the Upper Albian Viking Formation of central and southern Alberta. Reservoir units are mainly spatially restricted channelized sandstones, channel morphologies are tidal-fluvial estuarine fills for the Glauconite Formation, versus wave-dominated estuarine fills for the Viking Formation. Channel fills within tidal-fluvial systems typically contain lateral accretion deposits comprising inclined heterolithic stratification (IHS). By contrast, IHS is absent from the Viking Formation estuarine channel fills. Both valley systems possess facies recording the central basin, which retain evidence of the relative interplay of marine (waves and/or tides) and fluvial processes. The accurate characterization of the central basin may improve predictions of adjacent sandstone bodies and paleoecologic interpretations. Planktonic dinoflagellates produced cysts diversity and abundance generally decreases in salinity-stressed coastal environments compared to offshore-fully marine environments, although particular species may be abundant (e.g., Leckie et al., 1990). Dinocyst assemblages and trace-fossil suites can serve as independent indicators of salinity conditions and other ecologic factors operating in the depositional environment. Facies descriptions and interpretations of the Viking Formation central-basin facies have been derived from MacEachern and Pemberton (1994). Complementary palynological data was provided in MacEachern et al. (1999). Descriptions of the Glauconite Formation central basin and lateral accretion facies are based on core photos and descriptions in Leroux et al. (1999). Palynological assemblages from these facies are summarized from unpublished consulting reports compiled by Dr. Graham Dolby. All reported palynological assemblages were determined by 200 specimen counts, and through scans of the entire slide for additional taxa. The taxonomic classification used follows Fensome et al. (2009).

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 score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→