Provenance of Quaternary sands on Flemish Cap, offshore Island of Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were (a) to determine if Flemish Cap has a distinctive heavy mineral assemblage that would allow turbidites from Flemish Cap to be distinguished in Flemish Pass; and (b) to evaluate the role of local erosion versus ice-rafting in the evolution of the heavy mineral assemblages in the widespread sands on Flemish Cap. Heavy minerals were separated from four widely spaced surface sands on Flemish Cap and from one ~16 ka turbidite sand in Flemish Pass. Heavy minerals were identified from polished thin sections using a scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive spectroscopy. The dominant source of heavy minerals in the sand ridge fields of Flemish Cap is from ice-rafting from the Canadian Shield and Greenland. Erosion of Avalonian basement rocks on the Flemish Cap shoals was the dominant source of sand on the rocky shoals. Erosion of Tertiary and Cretaceous sandstones was not a significant source for heavy minerals based on the rarity of zircon, monazite, tourmaline and spinel/chromite. The 16 ka turbidite sand in eastern Flemish Pass has a similar varietal heavy mineral assemblage as the sand ridge fields of Flemish Cap.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".