MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333829464 · doi:10.1144/m36.31

Chapter 31 The Blaini Formation of the Lesser Himalaya, NW India

2011· article· en· W2333829464 on OpenAlexaff
James L. Etienne, Philip A. Allen, Erwan Le Guerroué, Larry M. Heaman, Sumit Ghosh, R. Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Memoirs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Neoproterozoic glaciogenic deposits crop out widely across the Lesser Himalaya fold and thrust belt in NW India. Underlain by the siliciclastic Simla and Jaunsar Groups, the Blaini Formation (Fm.) includes at least two thick and regionally extensive diamictite units, separated by siliciclastics and argillites and capped by a pink microcrystalline dolomite. A glaciogenic origin is supported by the presence of relatively abundant striated clasts and the local preservation of polished and striated pavement on underlying Simla Group clastics. The cap dolostone is isotopically light with respect to both 13 C and 18 O, which show strong covariance. The Blaini is ubiquitously deformed, incorporated in regional-scale folds and thrusts, and exhibits locally intensive intra-formational deformation. Until recently, geochronological constraints have remained poor, but new detrital zircon ages from diamictite samples provide a maximum age limit of 692±18 Ma ( 207 Pb/ 206 Pb). Reliable palaeomagnetic data are required to constrain the position of this important passive continental margin in palaeogeographical reconstructions.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London MemoirsSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207