MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460614777 · doi:10.2113/52.3.201

The Gordondale Member: designation of a new member in the Fernie Formation to replace the informal “Nordegg Member” nomenclature of the subsurface of west-central Alberta

2004· article· en· W2460614777 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Michèle Asgar-Deen, C. L. Riediger, Russell L. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyAmmonitePaleontologyGeochemistryDetritusCretaceous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New biostratigraphic data and revised lithostratigraphic correlations reveal that the current stratigraphic nomenclature for the Lower Jurassic portions of the Fernie Formation in the subsurface of west-central Alberta is inadequate. This paper introduces a new member, the Gordondale Member, for highly radioactive, fine-grained strata previously referred to as either the lower Fernie Formation, the Lower Fernie shelf limestone and clastics, the Nordegg Member, or the “Nordegg Member”. A new occurrence of a late Toarcian ammonite, which constrains the age of the top of the Gordondale Member, is also reported. The Hettangian to upper Toarcian Gordondale Member is an important hydrocarbon source rock and consists of dark brown, finely laminated, organic-rich, phosphatic and highly radioactive calcitic mudstones, calcilutites and fine-grained calcarenites. Fish fragments, pectinoid bivalves, Ostrea, belemnoids, ammonites, coccoliths and radiolarians are abundant. The Gordondale Member is laterally extensive and thins westward from a maximum thickness of approximately 50 m in the subsurface of west-central Alberta to 19 m at Pink Mountain in northeastern British Columbia.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum GeologySame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207