MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980076769 · doi:10.1130/2018.2541(13)

Early Carboniferous syn-rift sedimentation in the Sverdrup Basin (Yelverton Pass area, northern Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada): A solution to the Okse Bay problem

2019· book-chapter· en· W2980076769 on OpenAlexaffabout
B. Beauchamp, Daniel Alonso-Torres, Karsten Piepjohn, P Thériault, Stephen E. Grasby

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyCarboniferousPaleontologyDevonianUnconformitySverdrupPaleozoicLate Devonian extinctionBayOrogenyPalynologyClastic rockStructural basinOceanographyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The unit previously mapped as the lower Upper Devonian Okse Bay Formation in the Yelverton Pass area of northern Ellesmere Island, considered indicative of syn-orogenic foreland (Devonian clastic wedge) basin deposition along the apex of the Ellesmerian Orogen, is in fact Early Carboniferous (Serpukhovian) in age and belongs to the Borup Fiord Formation of the successor Sverdrup Basin. The principal lines of evidence in favor of the original Okse Bay formational assignment were: (1) the presence of late Middle (Givetian) or early Late (Frasnian) Devonian palynomorphs; (2) a set of lithofacies presumably different from that of the Borup Fiord Formation; and (3) an angular unconformity between the so-called Okse Bay strata and overlying Pennsylvanian carbonates of the Nansen Formation. Here we demonstrate that the Devonian palynomorphs were eroded from the Devonian clastic wedge, transported for some distance, and deposited into the Sverdrup Basin in the Early Carboniferous. We also show that the units mapped as Okse Bay and Borup Fiord formations share the same clastic lithofacies assemblages, albeit in different proportions. We report the presence of Early Carboniferous palynomorphs in the uppermost part of a section assigned to the Okse Bay Formation, and show that detrital zircons contained in the middle part of the Okse Bay Formation yield dates as young as 358 Ma, thus demonstrating that the rocks that contain them are considerably younger than the assumed youngest age (Frasnian) based on palynology. We conclude that the Okse Bay Formation is the same unit as the Borup Fiord Formation and should be remapped as such. Both units are part of the same unconformity-bounded syn-rift Serpukhovian sequence that was rotated and differentially eroded prior to the widespread Pennsylvanian transgression. The Serpukhovian sequence comprises three lithofacies assemblages: meandering stream clastic, braided stream/alluvial fan clastic, and shallow marine carbonate. These lithofacies assemblages were deposited as part of a differentially subsiding rift system likely bounded to the south by one or more master listric faults and associated footwall uplift, and to the north by hanging wall ramp uplift. The Serpukhovian sequence comprises three fourth-order sequences, each interpreted as corresponding to a rift pulse. Relatively coarse terrigenous sediments derived from the erosion of the Franklinian basement (Laurentia margin) and the Devonian clastic wedge entered the rift basin at a high angle through broad alluvial fans and braided river systems. These streams fed into a NE-flowing basin-axial meandering system, which met a shallow sea to the northeast. An additional source of sediments is Crockerland to the north, including syn- to post-Ellesmerian intrusions that shed detrital zircons of latest Devonian age once sufficient unroofing of these had occurred during the Serpukhovian.

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 score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society of America eBooksSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207