MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2909813127 · doi:10.4095/212159

Contributions to the sedimentology of the Strites Pond Formation Cambro-Ordovician Phillipsburg Group, southwestern Quebec

2001· report· en· W2909813127 on OpenAlexaffabout
Osman Salad Hersi, Denis Lavoie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentologyGroup (periodic table)GeologyOrdovicianGeochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cambro-Ordovician Strites Pond Formation of the Philipsburg Group overlies the Rock River Formation with an apparent tectonic contact and is disconformably overlain by the Wallace Creek Formation. The Strites Pond Formation consists of a lower dolostone member characterized by bioclastic, oolitic dolopackstone to grainstone and perva- sively coarse-crystalline dolostone, and an upper limestone member of thickly bedded mudstone and thrombolitic bioherm interbeds. Subordinate carbonate-rich sandstone and shale layers occur in both members. Microbially laminated dolostone also occurs within the uppermost part of the formation. Sedimentological attributes of the Strites Pond Formation suggest a subtidal to intertidal ooid and bioclast shoals to a subtidal environment domi- nated by mound-building microbial organisms. High-order sea-level fluctuations and vicinity of terrestrial siliciclastic supply area are manifested by numerous coarse-grained sandstone interbeds throughout the forma- tion. The overlying Wallace Creek Formation accumulated in a deeper marine setting suggesting a sea-level rise after deposition of the Strites Pond Formation.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→