MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196880175 · doi:10.21701/bolgeomin.131.2.006

Estimation of the ages of Devonian and Cretaceous stage boundaries in the Geologic Time Scale

2020· article· en· W3196880175 on OpenAlexaff
Frits Agterberg, Felix M. Gradstein, Andrew S. Gale

Bibliographic record

VenueBOLETÍN GEOLÓGICO Y MINERO · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMilankovitch cyclesPaleontologyGeologic time scaleCretaceousStage (stratigraphy)PaleogeneScale (ratio)Sedimentary rockCartographyGlacial periodGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of the ages of period and stage boundaries of the Geologic Time Scale (GTS) has a long history that commenced over a century ago with the pioneering work of Arthur Holmes. Frequencies, precision and accuracy of radiogenic isotope age determinations used for time scale construction continue to increase steadily. Later stage boundary age estimates are accompanied by error bars based on 2-sigma age dating errors with incorporation of stratigraphic uncertainty. Most GTS2004 and GTS2012 results involved spline-curve fitting. In GTS2012, Milankovitch-type orbital climate cyclicity was used to tune the Neogene geologic time scale while seafloor spreading was combined with sedimentary cycle scaling to construct the Paleogene time scale, and it also contributed to the construction of the Cretaceous and Jurassic time scales. Geomathematical procedures continue to be refined for the next GTS which is in Gradstein et al. (2020). In this study smoothing splines are used to construct Devonian and Late Jurassic - Early Cretaceous time scales. This methodology and its results are described and some estimates are refined by incorporating Milankovitch cycle durations.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBOLETÍN GEOLÓGICO Y MINEROSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207