MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292714544 · doi:10.1144/sp522-2022-56

Departures from the archetypal deltaic ichnofacies

2022· article· en· W4292714544 on OpenAlexaff
James A. MacEachern, Kerrie L. Bann

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIchnofaciesGeologyBioturbationSedimentary depositional environmentFluvialSedimentRiver deltaDeltaPaleontologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent work has focused on erecting new Seilacherian ichnofacies for depositional environments subject to recurring temporal and spatial variations in physico-chemical stress. In marine deltaic settings, these correspond to the Phycosiphon Ichnofacies for mudstone-dominated prodeltaic deposits and the Rosselia Ichnofacies for sandstone-dominated delta-front successions. The archetypal expressions of these ichnofacies, however, are founded on mixed process (wave- and river-influenced) systems, because the juxtaposition of ambient marine conditions during periods of prolonged wave energy with rapid deposition and physico-chemically stressed conditions during heightened fluvial discharge best expresses the deltaic signal. As deltaic settings shift towards end-member processes (e.g. river domination, wave domination and tide domination), or towards mixed-process conditions other than river and wave influence, the resulting ichnological suites and bioturbation fabrics depart from the recently published archetypes. Using selected studies of marine deltaic deposits, predictable departures from the archetypes can be recognized on the basis of these changing processes and their associated physico-chemical stresses. River-dominated delta deposits and tide-dominated delta successions display the greatest deviation from the published archetypes. River-dominated examples show elevated deposition rates, periods of salinity reduction, slumping and dewatering, elevated water turbidity, flood-induced sediment gravity flows and hypopycnal-generated fluid mud. As a result, river-dominated successions are largely devoid of bioturbation. Evidence of marine conditions is commonly restricted to isolated occurrences of dwelling structures such as Arenicolites , Ophiomorpha or Rosselia in sandstone, and Chondrites , Phycosiphon or Zoophycos in mudstone beds, particularly in prodeltaic intervals. Tide-dominated deltaic successions are markedly heterolithic and typified by highly mobile substrates manifested by incrementally migrating asymmetric bedforms and abundant fluid mud. Such settings are also prone to marked changes in salinity and shifts in the position of the turbidity maximum zone. Successions typically show low intensities of bioturbation and sporadically distributed burrows, as well as deposit-feeding structures, deeply penetrating dwelling structures or fugichnia. Many trace fossil suites consist entirely of facies-crossing elements, making assignment to an ichnofacies impossible. Storm flood-dominated deltaic successions are characterized by tempestites that are typically interstratified with river flood-induced sediment-gravity flow deposits and/or mantled by largely unburrowed mudstone drapes derived from hypopycnal plumes associated with river floods. Where these storm flood cycles are interstratified with ambient fairweather beds, assignment to the archetypal deltaic ichnofacies is straightforward. However, as storm beds become increasingly erosionally amalgamated, the preservation potential of the fairweather beds is reduced and the resulting trace fossil suites are biased towards those recording opportunistic colonization of the event beds. The presence of mudstone layers with low bioturbation intensity (BI) containing small numbers of ichnogenera positively correlated with marine conditions (e.g. Chondrites , Phycosiphon and/or Zoophycos ) may be the only evidence that the suites should be assigned to one of the deltaic ichnofacies. Wave-dominated deltas lacking significant storm influence are typically challenging to differentiate from their archetypal strandplain shoreface counterparts and, correspondingly, the resulting trace fossil suites are broadly comparable to the archetypal Cruziana and Skolithos ichnofacies. Most of the preserved record of wave-dominated delta successions is related to fairweather ambient conditions, and so facies typically show high BI values and uniformly distributed bioturbation. Key to recognizing that the suites should be assigned to one of the deltaic ichnofacies is the presence of rare river-generated mudstone and sandstone beds that display evidence of physico-chemical stress and/or the paucity of domichnia typical of suspension-feeding organisms. In most delta types, the prodeltaic facies are most readily discerned to contain trace fossil suites of the Phycosiphon Ichnofacies, owing to the higher preservation potential of all depositional processes, including marine fairweather beds, river-supplied hyperpycnites and other sediment gravity flow deposits, tempestites and fluid mud derived from river flood-related hypopycnal plumes. Assignment of trace fossil suites to the Rosselia Ichnofacies requires some record of the fairweather conditions, which are generally diminished in river-, tide- and storm-dominated successions. The dominance of structures positively correlated to deposit-feeding ethologies at the expense of those attributed to suspension-feeding strategies may point to elevated water turbidity and assignment of the suite to the Rosselia Ichnofacies. However, in many cases, the ichnological suites of delta fronts are so depauperate that assignment to an ichnofacies is problematic and should be avoided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207