Mud redeposition during river incision as a factor affecting authigenic 10Be/9Be dating: Early Pleistocene large mammal fossil-bearing site Nová Vieska, eastern Danube Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the suitability of the authigenic 10Be/9Be dating method to the dating of the deposits of an incising river, taking as an example the Nová Vieska river terrace, which accumulated during the neotectonic inversion of the Danube Basin (western Slovakia). The succession was formed by a wandering river with minor preservation of proximal floodplain muds. The frequent occurrence of mud intraclasts reflects a significant input of eroded material from underlying, older successions. The ages of 13 authigenic 10Be/9Be dating samples formed three groups: (1) samples from below the base of the river terrace yielded dates of ~4.13–3.70 Ma; (2) muddy intraclasts from the river terrace an age range of ~2.79–1.96 Ma; and (3) in situ muddy layers had ages in the range of ~1.91–1.39 Ma. The large mammal fossil assemblage from channel thalweg deposits yielded a biostratigraphic age of ~3.6–2.2 Ma, matching the age of intraclasts, and thus emphasizing the redeposited origin of those fossils. The relatively wide range of authigenic 10Be/9Be dating ages is interpreted as a result of the redeposition of mud from older strata on three scales: decimeter-scale intraclasts, millimeter-scale rip-up clasts mixed into the newly formed beds, and formation of two authigenic rims with different age and 10Be/9Be record around individual particles. Considering these observations, an age range of in situ layers of ~1.91–1.39 Ma is proposed as the depositional age of the river terrace. The effect of redeposition is thus shown to be potentially limiting to the application of authigenic 10Be/9Be dating to incising rivers, and stands in marked contrast with aggrading river settings, where redeposition of older sediment is limited and the degree of 10Be/9Be variability is low.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".