MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295821911 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2015.96

Depositional Dynamics In A Mixed Carbonate–Siliciclastic System: Middle–Upper Cambrian Abrigo Formation, Southeastern Arizona, U.S.A.

2016· article· en· W2295821911 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcelina Łabaj, Brian R. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSiliciclasticGeologySedimentary depositional environmentCarbonatePaleontologyGeochemistryStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Middle and Late Cambrian mixed carbonate–siliciclastic Abrigo Formation of southeastern Arizona was deposited during the Sauk transgression in the craton interior landward of the passive margin of Laurentia. It overlies shallow-marine sandstone of the Bolsa Quartzite, which mantled the Precambrian land surface. The Abrigo Formation consists of ten distinct rock types that comprise fifteen lithofacies, which are grouped into eight facies associations. The strata represent an array of shallow-marine environments that were dominated by wave and storm activity. The interpreted paleoenvironments include lower offshore, upper offshore, offshore transition, and lower, middle, and upper shoreface. These environments migrated laterally as a function of relative sea-level changes along with input of siliciclastic sediment and its effect on carbonate deposition. Stratigraphic distribution of facies indicates that there were two separate carbonate factories: one in the nearshore immediately seaward of the siliciclastic shoreface and the other in the distal offshore area. Correlation across 170 km of the study area suggests that these lithofacies were deposited in six temporally distinct phases involving two transgressive–highstand systems tract couplets during the Bolaspidela through Crepicephalus biozones, a falling-stage systems tract in the Aphelaspis Biozone, and a lowstand systems tract in the Elvinia Biozone following the Sauk II–Sauk III hiatus. In general, the mixed carbonate–siliciclastic depositional environment of the Abrigo Formation shows that fine-grained siliciclastic facies dominate the transgressive systems tract. By contrast, carbonate sedimentation was dominant mostly during the middle to late phase of the highstand. The upper part of the highstand systems tract records progradation of the sandy shoreface. Nevertheless, the ratio between siliciclastic and carbonate sediment in various bathymetric zones differs from previously described inner-detrital-belt examples of Cambrian age. In the Abrigo Formation, some bioclastic grainstone in shoreface deposits contains siliciclastic sand, indicating that the two were deposited together until sand was dominant. However, carbonate production and siliciclastic mud sedimentation were for the most part mutually exclusive, suggesting that the shallow-water carbonate factory during the Middle and Late Cambrian was vulnerable to poisoning from clay or nutrient input. Consequently, carbonate sedimentation in the offshore transition, located between sand-dominated shoreface and mixed carbonate–siliciclastic offshore facies, reflects the bypassing of siliciclastic mud.

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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207