MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268772219 · doi:10.1139/e2012-040

Characterization of green clay concretions from the Tonggao Formation, South China: Mineralogy, petrogenesis and paleoenvironmental implications<sup>1</sup>National Natural Science Foundation of China 40825006.

2012· article· en· W2268772219 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. R. M. Izawa, R. L. Flemming, Renbin Zhan, Jisuo Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyConcretionDiagenesisGeochemistryClay mineralsGlauconiteCalciteSedimentary rockDolomiteMineralMarlMineralogyPaleontologyStructural basinChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enigmatic millimetre-scale micro-concretions with pseudocrystal faces and dominated by green clay minerals occur in unfossiliferous siliciclastic mudstone of the Lower Ordovician (479.0–466.0 Ma) Tonggao Formation, South China. The fossil-free mudstone unit is associated with local biodiversity decline. The mineralogy and mineral chemistry of these concretions were unknown previously, and this study comprises a preliminary investigation. The concretions are dominated by Fe-rich phyllosilicate minerals including glauconite and clinochlore, with minor quartz and traces of magnetite. The textural relations between the micro-concretions and the surrounding matrix, and the preservation of original mudstone laminations within the concretions, point to an origin during early diagenesis. The mineralogy and chemistry of these concretions are consistent with an origin in a restricted, hypersaline, relatively deep-water environment, in accordance with stratigraphical and paleonotological data. These micro-concretions provide clues for a stressed environment with poor water circulation and anomalies of salinity and oxygen.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207