MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322010651 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8413

Evaluating Backwater versus Upstream Tectonic Controls on the Gravel-Sand Transition, Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation, Western Canada Sedimentary Basin

2023· preprint· en· W4322010651 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aneesa Ijaz Rabbani, Dr Janok Bhattacharya, Dr Beth Parker, Julie Zettl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAlluvial fanConglomerateSedimentary rockStructural basinGeomorphologyAlluviumOutcropCretaceousFaciesPaleontologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin is a well-characterized source-to sink system that extends for about 1000 km from proximal gravelly alluvial systems in the Liard Basin, Northwest Territories, to well-developed sandy deltaic and prodelta muddy shelf systems in Alberta. The mud to sand transition has been well-documented and the sandy deltas have been shown to be fed by tributive incised valley systems driven by cycles of high frequency sea-level change. These incised valleys in turn pass landward into the conglomerate alluvial systems, but the nature of these conglomerates and the controls on the gravel-sand transition have not been well examined.Dunvegan conglomerates in outcrops in the Liard Basin are moderately-sorted and well- rounded reaching up to small cobbles in size. These have previously been interpreted as alluvial fans; however, our investigations show a domination of sharp to scoured based meters-thick fining upward facies successions consisting of dune- and bar- scale cross stratification. The conglomeratic units comprise highly amalgamated channel belt deposits that form cliff exposures that are about 70 m high. There is an absence of debris flows or of sedimentary structures characteristic of supercritical flows, and we thus interpret these as likely deposited by meters-deep lower-gradient gravel-bed streams, rather than steep-gradient, sheet-flood dominated alluvial fans.Trunk channels in the sink area, farther to the southeast are associated with incised valleys and have a mean bankfull depth of 10-15 m, carry medium sand (< 200 microns) with slopes estimated to be on the order of 6x 10-5. Source to sink calculations indicate a back-water length of around 200 kilometers. Based on paleogeographic reconstructions, the conglomerates appear to have been deposited 300 to 500 km from the mapped deltaic shorelines, indicating that the gravel sand transition is not related to the back water and is likely not controlled by sea-level changes, thought to be important in generating the incised valleys in the sink area. The conglomerates appear to be confined within the Liard Basin, which is bounded to the east by the Bovie Fault, expressed as a major kilometer-throw normal fault. The Bovie structure was long-lived and may have been active throughout Dunvegan time. Hence, excess accommodation, driven by movement on the Bovie Fault may have prevented gravel from escaping into the more distal parts of the Western Canada Sedimentary basin. This is in contrast to other clastic wedges in the Cretaceous Interior Seaway, such as the Frontier and Cardium formations, that contain conglomeratic shoreline and shelf deposits and may indicate steeper gradient S2S systems.Tectonics and climate in the Dunvegan drainage basin may not have been linked to processes downstream because of the Bovie Fault. Despite clear evidence of downstream sea-level controls in the Dunvegan sink, it does not appear that these signals were able to propagate upstream.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→