MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2358510833

MULTI-STRATIGRAPHICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE DENGYING FORMATION AT SIXI,YICHANG, EASTERN YANGTZE GORGES AREA

2001· article· en· W2358510833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology and Mineral Resources of South China · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPaleontologyCarbonateGeochemistryDolostoneSequence stratigraphySubdivisionThree gorgesSequence (biology)StratigraphyCarbonate rockSedimentary depositional environmentSedimentary rockArchaeologyGeographyTectonicsChemistryStructural basinGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Litho and sequence stratigraphy research together with analysis of the trace fossil assemblage indicated that the Dengying Formation could be subdivided into two different sequences by the erosive boundary in the middle Shibantan Member of the Formation at Sixi of eastern Yangtze Gorges area: the lower limestone contains abundant diverse trace fossils and vendotaenids, similar to the Shibantan Member in standard section of the Dengying Formation at Liantuo in Yichang. At Sixi section, the Shibantan Member carbonate possess positive δ 13 C values, ranging from 3.01‰ to 4.50‰, while the δ 13 C values for Baimatuo Member dolostone range from 1.80‰ to 2.30‰, So, carbon isotopic compositions of the Dengying Formation at Sixi is similar to those of the upper part of the terminal Proterozoic in Namibia, northeastern Siberian and northwestern Canada, indicating that the Dengying Formation at Sixi deposited after evolution of the Ediacara fauna to the end of Neoproterozoic.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeology and Mineral Resources of South ChinaSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207