MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910010164 · doi:10.4095/212005

Lithology, tectonostratigraphy, ans paleogeography of the Vavenby area, Eagle Bay Assemblage, south-central British Columbia, a possible constraint for the timing of the rifting of Laurentia

2001· report· en· W2910010164 on OpenAlexaffabout
Noah Daniel Hughes, S J Paradis, James W. Sears, Michael C. Pope

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaurentiaPalaeogeographyBayEagleAssemblage (archaeology)GeologyPaleontologyLithologyRiftOceanographyOrdovicianStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New 1:20 000 scale mapping within the pericratonic rocks of the Eagle Bay Assemblage near Vavenby, south- central British Columbia, has revealed a stratigraphic transition from continental slope siliciclastic rocks of Latest Neoproterozoic or Early Cambrian age to a sequence dominated by thick successions of Early Cambrian mafic vol- canic and volcaniclastic rocks with an associated archaeocyathid-bearing carbonate platform. These rocks are overturned and structurally emplaced above the Devonian and Mississippian portion of the Eagle Bay Assemblage. Overall, this section is interpreted as recording the transition from deeper water, turbiditic and pelagicsedimentation to a period of tectonism and creation of a shallow-water to subaerial, mafic volcanic edifice. These Latest (?)Neoproterozoic and Early Cambrian pericratonic rocks within the Eagle Bay Assemblage record a period of Early Cambrian tectonism and mafic volcanism, supporting recent models of continental separation in this region at that time.

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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 Studies and Exploration→French-language works237,207→