MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919301606 · doi:10.1111/sed.12595

Composition and origin of stromatactis‐bearing mud‐mounds (Upper Devonian, Frasnian), southern Rocky Mountains, western Canada

2019· article· en· W2919301606 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kai Zhou, Brian R. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSociety for Sedimentary Geology
KeywordsGeologyMicritePaleontologyDevonianPaleozoicStromatoliteReefSponge spiculePennsylvanianCarbonateOceanographyFaciesStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stromatactis‐bearing mud‐mounds remain an enigmatic reef type despite being common in Palaeozoic ramp settings. Two well preserved Upper Devonian (Frasnian) mud‐mounds in the Mount Hawk Formation crop out side by side in the southern Rocky Mountains of west‐central Alberta and provide an opportunity to develop a new case study that can be compared with the other coeval examples, such as those well‐known ones in southern Belgium, as well as evaluate competing hypotheses for mud‐mound formation. The southern mud‐mound is 46·2 m thick and 38·6 m wide at the base, whilst the northern one is 53·3 m thick and 72·2 m wide at the base, and they exhibit three or four growth stages indicated by interfingering and onlapping geometries with flanking strata. The biota is diverse, but fossils only occupy 10·7% by volume, among which sponge spicules, echinoderms, ostracods, brachiopods and calcimicrobes belonging to Girvanella and Rothpletzella are the most common. Five microfacies are discriminated in the mud‐mounds: biomicrite, clotted micrite, spiculite, stromatolite and laminite, with clotted micrite comprising the largest proportion. There is no internal vertical or lateral palaeoecological zonation, and the presence of calcimicrobes and calcareous algae throughout indicates accretion entirely within the photic zone, in a deeper ramp setting seaward of a large carbonate platform to the east. Stromatactis is abundant and the cavities were mostly due to excavation by currents rather than physical collapse of spiculate siliceous sponges. Formation of lime mud involved a combination of multiple organisms, mechanisms and processes. Cyanobacteria were integral to mud‐mound frame‐building and accretion because they stabilized the surface, often permineralized to form Girvanella and provided organic matter that was decomposed by bacteria. This induced precipitation of micrite, forming early indurated rigid masses, evidenced by the presence of intraclasts, stromatactis cavities, isopachous marine cements, absence of bioturbation and rare synsedimentary brittle deformation. The same microbial components, invertebrate biota and clotted micrite occur in underlying strata, suggesting that there was a protracted period of potential mud‐mound initiation before the exact conditions arose to trigger it. The ramp setting, antecedent sea floor topography and relative sea‐level likely contributed together to control this. This study indicates that mud‐mound formation was controlled by a combination of processes, but they are essentially a microbial buildup.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207