MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205433997 · doi:10.2110/pec.06.84.0001

Facies Models Revisited

2006· book-chapter· en· W4205433997 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Tectonic Studies in Latin America
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaciesGeologyComputer sciencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The papers contained on this CD mostly originate from a session at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, repeated at the 2004 Dallas AAPG Meeting. The theme of both sessions was “Facies Models Revisited”, to see what sort of progress had been made since the third (1992) edition of Facies Models, published by the Geological Society of Canada. During the ten years between 1992 and 2002, there has been considerable progress in the understanding of modern and ancient depositional environments. This additional complexity makes modeling much more difficult, and raises the problem of whether modeling still serves a purpose. The original reasons for creating facies models still exist—a model is a point of comparison, it is a guide for further observations, it serves as a basis for hydrodynamic interpretation, and most importantly, it acts as a predictor in new situations. Using submarine fans as an example, it is clear that progress during the last ten years (particularly in 3-D seismic) has highlighted the inadequacy of all pre-existing models—indeed, no comprehensive models have been proposed since the mid eighties. Yet with continued and increasing exploration in submarine fan systems, predictive models are even more necessary. The traditional approach, of distilling the features that modern and ancient systems have in common, is extremely difficult (and probably naive) in such diverse and complex systems. Instead, it is necessary to identify all of the constituent building blocks of submarine fans (channels, point bars, levees, splays, frontal lobes and so on), and try to identify the salient features of each. New models for particular situations can be constructed by examining the relationships of the constituent building blocks. For example, sinuous channels, levees and splays may be closely related in space, whereas frontal lobes are unlikely to be related to sinuous leveed channels (except for the channel that ultimately feeds the lobe). A three-dimensional reconstruction can therefore be made by examining the building blocks that are closely and commonly related, and also using information from the building blocks that are seldom or never found in juxtaposition. These principles, discussed above for submarine fans, can be applied to all depositional environments, at all scales. The ideas are elaborated in this introductory paper, and can be seen in the other contributions to this CD.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.187 · 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