Field evidence suggests that the Palaeoproterozoic Gowganda Formation in Canada is non-glacial in origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During more than a century since its original identification, the Gowganda Formation in Ontario (Canada) has gradually been reinterpreted from representing mainly subglacial tillites to secondary gravity flow and glaciomarine deposits. The main pieces of geological evidence advanced in favour of glaciation in recent articles are outsized clasts that have been interpreted as dropstones and patches of diamictites in a single small-sized area at Cobalt which is still interpreted as displaying subglacial basal tillites. The present research considers field evidence in the Gowganda Formation in the light of more recent work on gravity flows linked to tectonics. Detailed studies have demonstrated that the clasts which are interpreted to be dropstones rarely penetrate laminae and are commonly draped by sediments the appearance of which is similar to lonestones in gravity flows. The “subglacial area” at Cobalt displays evidence of tectonics and gravity flows, which can be traced from the underlying bedrock, and then further in the overlying sequence of diamictites and rhythmites. The sum of geological features displays appearances at odds with a primary glaciogenic origin, and there is no unequivocal evidence present of glaciation. The data indicate deposition by non-glaciogenic gravity flows, including cohesive debris flows for the more compact units, probably triggered by tectonic displacements.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".