REPLY TO DISCUSSION of J. Wendte and A. Embry: Toward a sequence stratigraphic framework for the Frasnian of the Western Canada Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We appreciate the discussion of our recent paper (Potma et al., 2001) by J. Wendte and A. Embry. However, we strongly disagree with their assessment of our work. Our reply will begin with some general comments, address their arguments point by point, and conclude with a summary. Wendte and Embry (2002, this issue) recognize four of the ten sequence boundaries we consider significant and regionally correlatable. We interpret two of these, the base of the Gilwood Member and the “base Graminia silt”, as second-order sequence boundaries, occurring at the base and top, respectively, of our proposed second-order Givetian–Frasnian depositional sequence. We interpret two others, the base Calmar Formation and base Beaverhill Lake (BHL) Sequence 3, as third-order sequence boundaries. Wendte and Embry then describe our proposed stratigraphic framework as being “highly suspect”, “entirely untenable”, “fatally flawed”, etc. They state that many of our interpreted subaerial unconformities “have not been recognized by previous workers”. This is incorrect. We believe our work, presented at the AAPG conference (Gilhooly et al., 1992; Potma et al., 1992; Weissenberger et al., 1992; Wong et al.,1992) and subsequently (Gilhooly et al., 1995), was the first to interpret these surfaces as regionally correlatable sequence boundaries. These interpretations were presented again as part of a field seminar sponsored by the CSPG continuing education committee (Gilhooly et al., 1995). Numerous other authors ascribed stratigraphic significance to many of these surfaces. They have illustrated or described unconformities within these stratigraphic intervals. The pertinent literature is summarized in Table 1⇓. View this table: Table 1. Sequence boundaries defined by Potma et al. (2001) and previous literature that interprets comparable relationships, or otherwise corroborates these boundaries. Wendte and Embry (2002, this issue) then present two main criticisms of our work: 1) that we present insufficient evidence for the “identification of …
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".