MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088359816 · doi:10.1111/sed.12801

On the origin and significance of composite particles in mudstones: Examples from the Cenomanian Dunvegan Formation

2020· article· en· W3088359816 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhiyang Li, Jüergen Schieber, Per Kent Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySedimentary depositional environmentProvenanceGeochemistryClastic rockCenomanianSedimentary rockPetrographyGeomorphologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the fact that mud‐dominated composite particles have increasingly been recognized as important components of marine mudstones, the characteristics, types and origins of these composite particles remain poorly understood. This incomplete understanding of critical mudstone parameters (for example, depositional grain size, composition at the particle scale and provenance) severely limits the ability to accurately interpret the conditions (for example, depositional environment and climate) under which these rocks were deposited. Herein, detailed petrographic analysis was conducted in core samples from a transect of contemporaneous proximal to distal deposits from the Cenomanian Dunvegan Formation, a fluvial‐dominated delta system in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Within the well‐developed depositional framework, mud‐dominated composite particles can be tracked along the depositional profile of the Dunvegan Formation from the fluvial to the marine realm (from incised valley to distal prodelta). By following these particles from source (hinterland erosion) to sink (offshore deposition), the origin and dispersal of various types of mud‐dominated composite particles in marine mudstones can be unequivocally determined. Mud‐dominated composite particles derived from a wide range of origins are differentiated. Allochthonous mud‐dominated composite particles, supplied by rivers draining the hinterland, comprise volcanic rock fragments (vitric or felsic in composition), chert fragments, shale lithics (clay‐mineral‐rich or quartz‐rich in composition), metamorphic rock fragments and chlorite/siderite clasts. Autochthonous mud‐dominated composite particles include rip‐up clasts (argillaceous, sideritic or siliceous in composition) formed from intra‐basinal erosion and contemporaneous floccules. The recognition of mud‐dominated composite particles shows that the Dunvegan prodelta ‘mudstones’ are much coarser grained and more heterogeneous in terms of their petrographic composition than the grain size of their component minerals would suggest. Results of this study call for a critical reappraisal of the composition and actual grain size of mudstones in general. Recognition of mud‐dominated composite particles can provide valuable insights to unravel their provenance, transport history and depositional setting, and will greatly enhance their utility as palaeoenvironmental archives.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207