MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953957523 · doi:10.5539/mas.v13n7p94

The Architectural Element Distribution of Cinambo Formation in Jatigede Area, Sumedang District, West Java - Indonesia

2019· article· en· W2953957523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Rizal, Aji Rahmat Gumilar

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyConglomerateBeddingPaleocurrentStructural basinGeomorphologySiltstoneLeveeGeochemistryFaciesGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is conducted in Jatigede subdistrict, Sumedang district, West Java Province, Indonesia, with a geographic position 175500 - 185000E and 9237800 -9242200 S. There are many different types of rocks scattered forming the Cinambo Formation including sandstones, mudstones, alternation claystones, conglomeratic sandstones, and conglomerate stones. Stratigraphic cross-section measurements on the Cimanuk River and Cinambo River traverses is carried out to figure out the distribution of the architectural elements of the Cinambo Formation. Nine lithofacies are obtained from both traverses: massive conglomerate (A1-1), graded bedding conglomerate and graded bedding conglomeratic sandstone (A2-3), conglomeratic sandstone (A2-1), massive sandstone (B1-1), graded bedding sandstone (B2-4), bedded sandstone (B2-1), alternation sandstone – mudstone (sandstone domination) (C2-2), alternation dense and thin alternation sandstone – mudstone, and mudstone intercalation sandy siltstone. The architectural elements that appear on Cimanuk River traverse are sandy lobe, proximal channel, distributary channel and proximal levee, while the elements that appear on the Cinambo River traverse are sandy lobe, proximal levee and distal levee. A vertical change of the architectural element can be observed on both traverses, which are likely to be caused by the fluctuation of sea level. Base on the architectural element data, it can be concluded that the Cinambo Formation was deposited in the upper fan-basin plain of a deep-marine fan system.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207