MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970679797 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2019.39

Alluvial Terracing in a Falling-stage Braidplain: the Lower Cretaceous Cadomin Formation, West-central Alberta, Canada

2019· article· en· W2970679797 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael F. Johnson, Robert W. Dalrymple

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAggradationTerrace (agriculture)DiachronousCretaceousGeomorphologyPaleontologyRiver terracesFluvialPaleosolIsopach mapAlluviumGeochemistryStructural basinFaciesLoessArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Lower Cretaceous Cadomin Formation in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin is a thin, regionally extensive, conglomeratic fluvial deposit that accumulated over many million years on the sub-Cretaceous unconformity. Based on a dataset of approximately 50 cores and 750 wireline well logs from west-central Alberta, detailed isopach mapping of the overlying deposits reveals the presence of a complex, terraced paleo-topography on the top of the Cadomin Formation, consisting of six terrace levels in the study area. These terraces flank a series of north–south valleys that feed into a larger east–west valley to the north of the study area. This larger valley is also bordered by terraces that step downward to the north. The gradients of the north–south valley thalwegs are steeper than the flanking terraces, indicating that each terrace is diachronous and was most likely formed by the headward migration of knickpoints generated by episodic incision of the trunk valley. This paleo-topography formed during a prolonged period of falling base level caused by unroofing of the adjacent orogen. Thus, the Cadomin Formation represents a falling-stage systems tract. The deposits underlying each terrace consist mainly of channel-thalweg and braid-bar deposits. Preservation of full channel-bar successions in many terraces is consistent with terrace abandonment as incision resumed following a period of mild aggradation. Terrace abandonment is also indicated by the presence of a capping layer of wind-blown silt. Pedogenic alteration of this loessite is greatest on the highest terraces and extends to considerable depths, indicating the existence of a significant hiatus at the top of the Cadomin Formation. This surface, which lies above falling-stage deposits, should be used as the sequence boundary, if the sequence boundary is thought to coincide with the time of lowest base level. This surface, although its formation was diachronous, represents a real landscape surface, unlike the composite erosion surface beneath the Cadomin Formation (i.e., the sub-Cretaceous unconformity). The alternation of incision and aggradation that generated the terraces was probably the result of allogenic fluctuations in sediment supply caused by climate cycles, as was the case for analogous Quaternary terrace staircases. Downstepping alluvial terraces are a viable mechanism for the progradation of alluvial gravels long distances from a mountain belt during periods of basin uplift, and may explain the relatively thin, but areally extensive, alluvial sandstone and conglomerate sheets that are common at major unconformities in the stratigraphic record. We suggest that signs of subtle terracing may have been overlooked in similar sheet-like alluvial deposits elsewhere, although they can be removed by erosion during shoreline transgression or by later fluvial-channel migration. In the case of the Cadomin Formation, the exceptional preservation of the terraces is likely due to a combination of the difficulty of eroding the conglomerate and indurated loessite cap, and of the low-energy nature of floodplain sedimentation in the overlying Gething 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207