MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974368928

Microfacies analysis of mudstone in a freshwater to marine transect: Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan and Kaskapau formations, Western Canada Foreland Basin

2019· article· en· W2974368928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katharin Pavan

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeland basinGeologyCretaceousTransectStructural basinPaleontologyOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Cenomanian-Turonian Dunvegan and Kaskapau formations in Alberta and British Columbia, terrestrial, and nearshore to offshore environments can be related temporally and spatially using a well-established allostratigraphic framework. In these varied environments, ten mudstone microfacies were identified, using optical and scanning electron microscopy. Microfacies 1 through 3 were deposited in a freshwater lacustrine environment by hyperpycnal flows, and consist of rippled, structureless, and inverse-to-normally graded thin beds that record turbulent, laminar, and waxing and waning flow. Microfacies 4 and 5 were deposited from turbulent flow in a fluvial environment. Microfacies 6 represents a paleosol that underlies a maximum flooding surface above the base of Dunvegan allomember E. Marine prodelta mudstones contain microfacies 7 to 9 that comprise bioturbated mudstone characterised by a randomly oriented clay fabric, and storm-generated interlaminated siltstone and mudstone. Microfacies 10 is the most distal offshore facies and includes organo-mineralic aggregates and re-worked intraclastic aggregates.

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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207