MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981676000 · doi:10.4095/223893

Correlations in Cambrian and Lower Ordovician strata of Saskatchewan

2007· report· en· W2981676000 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Dixon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdovicianGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cambrian to Lower Ordovician strata examined for this report includes the informally named Basal Sandstone Unit (BSU), and the Earlie and Deadwood formations. These strata are Middle Cambrian to Early Ordovician in age, with the BSU and Earlie Formation being Middle Cambrian, and the Deadwood Late Cambrian to Early Ordovician. Although the cross sections in this report include the Lower Ordovician Winnipeg Formation, it is not part of the descriptive text. Our knowledge of Cambrian strata in Saskatchewan is based entirely on subsurface data; no outcrops of the Cambrian are known in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Wells penetrating Cambrian and Lower Ordovician strata are not numerous (366 wells were used in this study - Appendix 1), and even fewer penetrate into the Precambrian. Also, the distribution of these wells is non-uniform, the greatest concentration being in southeast Saskatchewan. The aim of this presentation is to illustrate correlations on regional cross sections in the Cambrian to Lower Ordovician succession of Saskatchewan and to understand the vertical and lateral relationships between and within the various stratigraphic units.

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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils→French-language works237,207→