MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199134042 · doi:10.2110/palo.2003.p03-118

The Temporal Significance of Bioturbation in Backshore Deposits: Waterside Beach, New Brunswick, Canada

2005· article· en· W2199134042 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shahin E. Dashtgard

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaios · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioturbationGeologyOceanographyGeomorphologyPaleontologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper provides an estimate of the temporal nature and environmental implications of bioturbation in upper-foreshore and backshore deposits resulting from the burrowing activity of talitrid amphipods at Waterside Beach, Bay of Fundy, Canada. Short-term preservation potential is assessed by comparing shore-normal variations in burrow morphologies and densities to grain-size distribution, and hydraulic and eolian processes. The intensity and distribution of burrowing is linked to depositional environment and provides a temporal framework for bioturbation indices in ancient upper-foreshore and backshore deposits. Bioturbation in foreshore and backshore successions provides a means for predicting short-term, autocyclic processes in the rock record, in that: (1) the initial occurrence of burrowing marks the transition from the foreshore to the backshore, and (2) the degree of bioturbation may be used to predict depositional rates and processes. At Waterside, bioturbation indices (BI) of two or less indicate a single season of colonization; BIs of two (upper end of range) and higher suggest multiple seasons of colonization. A high BI may indicate that the backshore environment was protected from wave reworking or erosion (particularly during storms) and/or was subjected to minor eolian sedimentation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaiosSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207