Interplay of eustatic, tectonic and autogenic controls on a Late Devonian carbonate platform, northern Canning Basin, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frasnian reef complexes along the northern margin of the Canning Basin in northwestern Australia evolved during rifting of the Fitzroy Trough. Geological investigations of the Frasnian Hull platform, which developed on an active tilted fault‐block, reveal significant lateral and vertical facies variations superimposed on prominent metre‐scale cyclicity. This study uses numerical analyses of facies and magnetic susceptibility data from three measured sections along the Hull platform to test whether a tectonic signal can be distinguished from eustatic and other signals. Geostatistical analysis of facies variations reveals an exponential distribution of thin (<3 m) facies, characteristic of stochastic depositional processes. Thick subtidal facies predominate in the Guppy Hills (GH) and southeastern Hull Range (SHR) sections near the hangingwall margin, and thick shallow‐subtidal to intertidal facies dominate the Horse Springs drillcore (HD 14) section near the footwall margin. Power and wavelet spectral analyses indicate a strong periodic component; Average Spectral Misfit and spectral optimisation methods confirm the presence of Milankovitch eccentricity signals and suggest the presence of obliquity and precession signals. However, the results also expose strong temporal and spatial variation providing evidence for tectonic control. Spectral analyses show strongest periodicity is recorded in short intervals that are not correlated across the platform and provide evidence of variations in sedimentation rate and hiatuses. Time series for the neighbouring GH and SHR sections show no overall statistical correlation, and Markov analysis indicates weakly ordered vertical facies transitions that do not correlate across the platform. Subtidal to intertidal facies data from HD 14 core suggest that at least 35% of the section is absent, almost obscuring the Milankovitch signal. The results indicate a complex set of controls on deposition on the Hull platform with local tectonic effects having produced spatio‐temporal moderation of the underlying eustatic signals and autogenic processes adding a localised stochastic response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".