MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255722130 · doi:10.1130/ges01632.1

Maximum depositional age of the Neoproterozoic Jacobsville Sandstone, Michigan: Implications for the evolution of the Midcontinent Rift: REPLY

2018· article· en· W4255722130 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David H. Malone, Carol A. Stein, John P. Craddock, Jonas Kley, Seth Stein, John Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosphere · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySedimentary depositional environmentRiftPaleontologyGeochemistryPetrologyTectonicsStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank T.J. Bornhorst (2018) for consideration of our work on the Jacobsville Sandstone in northern Michigan. We engaged in this research to advance understanding of the geology of the Lake Superior region. As we began this project, we were fascinated that little attention had been paid to refining the lithostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic understanding of the Jacobsville Sandstone; our work is ongoing. Since publication of Malone et al. (2016a), we have analyzed ~400 additional zircons from 3 Jacobsville Sandstone exposures in Ontario (Canada). We will collect and analyze Jacobsville subsurface occurrences in the next few months. Bornhorst’s comment questioned our sampling and analytical methodologies, and the statistical factors used to determine the Jacobsville maximum depositional age (MDA). He also challenged our interpretations as well as “…far-reaching conclusions …” here. We find these generalizations puzzling, but welcome this opportunity to expand our discussion of the Jacobsville Sandstone in Malone et al. (2016a).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosphereSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207