MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979929279 · doi:10.1111/sed.12674

Using ichnological relationships to interpret heterolithic fabrics in fluvio‐tidal settings

2019· article· en· W2979929279 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Melnyk, Murray K. Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCenovus Energy
KeywordsGeologySedimentary structuresSedimentary depositional environmentFluvialEstuaryPaleontologySedimentary rockOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In fluvio‐tidal settings, the sediment is dominantly derived from the river systems. However, the importance of landward tidal transport of sediment in tidally influenced sedimentary environments is difficult to assess, particularly in the rock record. This problem is addressed using two intervals within the Lower Cretaceous McMurray Formation, each representing a distinct inclined heterolithic stratification motif. The ichnological variation between the heterolithic intervals is analyzed to determine which lithosomes are associated with brackish‐water (tidally influenced) colonization windows. From this, the relative fluvial influence responsible for the deposition of the fine and coarse members can be determined. Both of the inclined heterolithic stratification fabrics studied record the deposition of fluvio‐tidal point bars wherein the heterolithic bedding represents variations in river discharge. The first fabric comprises inclined heterolithic stratification in which bioturbation only occurs in mudstone beds. This fabric indicates that deposition occurred in more proximal positions within a fluvio‐tidal system (i.e. the outermost inner to middle estuary or distributary channels). In this example sand deposition is interpreted to represent high‐energy, freshwater dune migration within a fluvial‐dominated setting, whereas mud beds reflect brackish‐water suspension deposition during times of low river discharge. The second fabric, which is interpreted to have developed in more distal depositional positions (i.e. the middle estuary or seaward of the turbidity maximum in deltas), consists of inclined heterolithic stratification with laminated mudstone and bioturbated sandstone. In these inclined heterolithic stratification successions the mudstone beds were deposited under the influence of freshwater and heightened sedimentation rates, whereas bioturbated sandstone was colonized under brackish‐water conditions and in the presence of tidally facilitated sediment transport. In both examples, the bioturbated lithosomes are related to colonization windows that indicate the predominance at that time of marine or tidally influenced processes over fluvial processes.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207