KINNEYIA-TYPE WRINKLE STRUCTURES ON SANDSTONE BEDS: NOT MICROBIALLY INDUCED BUT DEFORMATION FEATURES CAUSED BY SYNSEDIMENTARY EARTHQUAKES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A category of wrinkle structures, often termed Kinneyia structure or Runzel marks, comprises bedding plane features consisting typically of anastomosing, low-relief, flat-topped ridges with intervening depressions. Topographic relief is usually less than a millimeter. They are locally common on the upper surfaces of fine- to medium-grained sandstone beds interbedded with mudstone deposited in offshore settings, especially in Precambrian and lower Paleozoic strata but as young as Cretaceous. For more than the last two decades these wrinkle structures have been widely regarded as due to microbial mats, and have been taken as evidence for dominance in the Proterozoic of microbially stabilized sediment and, in the Phanerozoic, a matground marine benthic ecology which gradually gave way to a mixground ecology. The detailed morphology and cross-cutting relationships demonstrated by a range of specimens of Proterozoic, Cambrian, and Silurian age, however, cast this interpretation into doubt. The relationship between the wrinkled surface and bioclasts such as shells and both prior- and later-formed scour surfaces, and horizontal and vertical burrows show that these wrinkles did not develop due to the surface topography of microbial mats or compaction of microbial mats during burial, but instead formed at the top of a sand bed at the interface with an overlying layer of mud. Deformation is ascribed to vibration from low-magnitude earthquakes. The presence in some units of small-scale sedimentary dikelets and crack arrays that formed later after some stiffening, along with locally associated seismites and other evidence for nearby faulting, show that syndepositional tectonic activity was not unexpected and support the interpretation that this category of wrinkle structures is a type of seismite.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".