What does the ichnological content of the Middle McMurray Formation tell us?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| March 01, 2016 What does the ichnological content of the Middle McMurray Formation tell us? A. Shchepetkina; A. Shchepetkina Ichnology Research Group (IRG), Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar M.K. Gingras; M.K. Gingras Ichnology Research Group (IRG), Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar S.G. Pemberton; S.G. Pemberton Ichnology Research Group (IRG), Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar J.A. MacEachern J.A. MacEachern ARISE, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information A. Shchepetkina Ichnology Research Group (IRG), Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3 M.K. Gingras Ichnology Research Group (IRG), Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3 S.G. Pemberton Ichnology Research Group (IRG), Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3 J.A. MacEachern ARISE, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Publisher: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Received: 02 Dec 2014 Accepted: 29 Dec 2015 First Online: 12 Jul 2017 Online Issn: 2368-0261 Print Issn: 0007-4802 © the Society of Canadian Petroleum Geologists Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology (2016) 64 (1): 24–46. https://doi.org/10.2113/gscpgbull.64.1.24 Article history Received: 02 Dec 2014 Accepted: 29 Dec 2015 First Online: 12 Jul 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation A. Shchepetkina, M.K. Gingras, S.G. Pemberton, J.A. MacEachern; What does the ichnological content of the Middle McMurray Formation tell us?. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 2016;; 64 (1): 24–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/gscpgbull.64.1.24 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology Search Advanced Search Abstract Despite the abundant well-log and core data available for the McMurray Formation, the succession has remained difficult to interpret. Presently, a fundamental aspect of understanding the depositional nature of the McMurray Formation is whether or not the formation is dominantly estuarine or fluvial. Focussing on the informal middle McMurray, our detailed analysis of the McMurray Formation within the Kearl Oil Sands area critically evaluates the utility of collecting high-resolution ichnological and sedimentological data as a means to assess the depositional environments and to evaluate the evidence for an estuarine versus a tidally influenced fluvial depositional setting.This study asserts that the middle McMurray Formation within the Kearl Oil Sands area was deposited on estuarine point-bars. The examined dataset encompasses what are interpreted to be inner to middle estuarine depositional locales within a mesotidal regime. Integration of detailed ichnological and sedimentological data permits recognition of intertidal flat deposits which exist at sea level, and the identification of which provides a locally useful stratigraphic datum. Identification of successions of stacked tidally influenced channels of varying dimensions help identify stratigraphic levels of amalgamated estuarine channel bars and gives an approximation of relative changes in sea level. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".