MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295517467

Evidence of High-Frequency Storm Disturbance in the Middle Devonian Arkona Shale, Southwestern Ontario

2006· article· en· W2295517467 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cameron J. Tsujita, Carlton E. Brett, Michael Topor, John Topor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of taphonomy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaphonomyGeologyStormDisturbance (geology)Benthic zonePaleontologyErosionFaunaSeafloor spreadingDevonianOceanographyCoastal erosionEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of storms as agents of deposition and erosion is obvious in many ancient offshore marine successions. Indeed, storm-generated shell beds are among the most prominent small-scale features in otherwise monotonous successions, particularly those dominated by mudstones. Shell beds are usually interpreted as products of rare episodes of storm-generated disturbance punctuating long periods (tens, to hundreds, to thousands of years) of quiescence, the shell beds representing storms of greatest severity. The taphonomic attributes of shell beds in the Middle Devonian Arkona Shale (southwestern Ontario) indicate that even ?simple? shell beds can have complex histories. Shell-rich beds dominated by well-preserved remains of small rugose corals, spiriferid brachiopods, and a variety of crinoids, are commonly associated with pavements of shell debris reworked by earlier storms. Taphonomic dissection of five examples, informally called the lower Arthroacantha bed, the in situ Mucrospirifer bed, the upper Arthroacantha bed, the auloporid bed, and the Microcyclus bed, reveals a common theme; initial priming of the seafloor by one or more storms, was followed by colonization of the primed substrate by shelly benthic fauna which, in turn, was followed by final disturbance and burial of the faunal remains by a later storm. For storms to have produced multiple signatures in single shell beds of the Arkona Shale, the frequencies of seafloor disturbance must have been very high, probably on the order of a few years. Such frequencies are much higher than those implied by stratigraphic occurrences of conspicuous shell beds (i. E., without considering internal features of the shell beds). This implies that individual shell beds do not necessarily represent the most severe storms recorded in mudstone successions but can, in some cases, merely represent the most obvious products of storm disturbance by virtue of their shell content. Regardless of storm severity, the disturbance of a muddy seafloor lacking abundant shell material would produce an indistinct mud-on-mud contact that would be much less likely to be noticed than a shell-rich horizon. By the same token, both low-magnitude (but high-frequency) storms and high magnitude (but low-frequency) storms can produce shell beds, provided that sufficient shell material is available for reworking. Obviously, the key to the formation of shell-rich horizon is an abundance of shelly material on the seafloor. For this, a cause other than storm deposition must be sought; in most cases, these beds also record interludes of relative sediment starvation and increased seafloor oxygenation. Interpretations of storm severity from storm-generated shell beds should therefore be approached with caution and be considered in context of the faunal dynamics and depositional characteristics of a sedimentary succession as a whole.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of taphonomySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207