MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910360208 · doi:10.4095/223771

Topographic influences on the sedimentology of the Read and Manitou Falls formations, eastern Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan

2007· report· en· W2910360208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Darrel G.F. Long

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentologyGeologyStructural basinPhysical geographyGeochemistryGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the eastern Athabasca Basin, Read and Manitou Falls formations unconformably overlie high-grade Wollaston and Mudjatik gneiss domains. Stratal architecture and paleocurrents of basal strata at the SueCpit at McClean Lake and the Deilmann pit at Key Lake indicate that initial deposition was strongly influenced by basement paleotopography, with early deposits confined between distinct valley walls. Stratigraphically younger units experienced less direct basement influence on river patterns. They are likely to have formed by deposition on amalgamated braidplains, essentially at or near grade, filling a broad, nearly flat accommodation space. Drill logs at McArthur River and Cigar Lake suggest that paleotopography there also influenced the basal lithofacies, as cobble and large pebble conglomerate accumulated in rivers that ran parallel to basin-margin faults. Some uranium ore bodies occupy low-relief, mature topographic depressions along pre-existing fault trends; others overlie basement ridges. Systematic paleocurrent measurements in inclined exploratory cores may aid selection of exploration targets, especially where paleocurrents deviate from regional trends.

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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207