MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279063719 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511975622.010

Ichnology of deep-marine clastic environments

2011· book-chapter· en· W2279063719 on OpenAlexaff
Luís A. Buatois, M. Gabriela Mángano

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrace fossilIchnologyGeologyTurbiditeTurbidity currentPaleontologyBurrowSedimentSedimentary depositional environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Y cuando me hundo en el mar de la fertilidad, un silencio visual:es la fauna abisal reflejando el color del sol Gustavo Cerati Lisa (1993) Deep-marine trace fossils have long fascinated ichnologists with their amazing variety of shapes and sizes, arranged in regular and recurrent patterns (Fuchs, 1895). Graphoglyptids preserved at the base of sandy turbidites have represented a challenging puzzle. Trace fossils preserved in turbidites exposed mostly in European Mountain Chains (Fuchs, 1895; Azpeitia-Moros, 1933; Seilacher, 1962, 1977a; Książkiewicz, 1970, 1977; Crimes, 1977; Crimes et al ., 1981), but also in South (Macsotay, 1967) and North (Chamberlain, 1971) America rapidly captured the attention of ichnologists. These structures were originally interpreted as post-turbidite (Seilacher, 1960), but after further research Seilacher (1962) was able to demonstrate that graphoglyptids were in fact pre-turbidite trace fossils formed as shallow-tier open burrow systems in the hemipelagic mud and preserved due to uniform stripping of the uppermost muddy layer by the incoming turbidity current and subsequent casting with sand. In another seminal paper, Seilacher (1977a) introduced a morphological classification of these structures, including continuous meanders (e.g. Helminthorhaphe and Cosmorhaphe ), uniramous meanders (e.g. Belorhaphe , Helicolithus , and Urohelminthoida ), biramous meanders (e.g. Desmograpton and Paleomeandron ), radial structures (e.g. Glockerichnus and Lorenzinia ), irregular networks (e.g. Megagrapton and Acanthorhaphe ), and regular networks (e.g. Paleodictyon ). The fact that these structures were originally described and interpreted from the fossil record, and only later recorded in the modern deep sea has been regarded as an example of reverse uniformitarianism, in which the past is the key to the present (Frey and Seilacher, 1980). Recent years have witnessed extraordinary progress in our understanding of the ichnotaxonomy of deep-marine trace fossils. Following a long tradition started by Polish ichnologist Marian Książkiewicz, a number of monographs have been published during the last 15 years or so (Uchman, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001), allowing the establishment of a systematic framework to classify deep-marine trace fossils. Parallel to this, significant progress was attained in our knowledge of biogenic structures formed in the modern deep sea (e.g. Werner and Wetzel, 1982; Wetzel, 1981, 1984, 1991, 2002, 2008). Integration of modern observations and detailed systematic work are now resulting in more finely tuned ichnological and sedimentological models of turbidite systems (e.g. Wetzel and Uchman, 2001; Ponce et al ., 2007; Olivero et al ., 2010; Wetzel, 2010; Carmona and Ponce, 2011), including studies in based on cores (Knaust, 2009). In all probability, future work will emphasize the search for comparative ichnological signatures of various deep-sea processes, such as episodic turbidity currents, hyperpycnal flows, and bottom currents (e.g. Wetzel et al., 2008). In this chapter, we will review the ichnology of deep-marine environments, covering both slopes and base-of-slope turbidity systems. In order to do so, we will subdivide slopes in topographically simple and topographically complex, and turbidite systems into fine-grained and coarse-grained.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.156
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207