Concerning the discussion about the Bug series of the Middle Bug (Ukrainian shield)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The materials of several articles and reports published in 2022 by the authors of this work and V.P. Kirilyuk (Kirilyuk, 2022 a,b), who discussed the structure and stratigraphy of the Вug area granulite complex of the Ukrainian Shield. The authors, relying on their geological, geophysical and geochemical studies, isotopic geochronology data, as well as on the world experience in studying the Early Precambrian complexes of the Canadian and Australian shields, argue that during 3.8—1.7 Ga, the Bug area granulite complex underwent at least a threefold structural metamorphic processing. Its modern structural plan, as well as, to a large extent, the composition and structural and textural features of metamorphic rocks, are of Early Proterozoic age. Therefore, its division into suites of primary sedimentary-volcanogenic rocks and their vertical distribution by age does not make sense. Only a division into two series is possible — the Dniester-Bug and the Bug, between which there is a tectonic contact. Contrary to this, V.P. Kirilyuk, relying on the experience of his stratigenic-metamorphogenic studies and the authority of the well-known school of L.I. Salopa, E.M. Lazko et al., defends the point of view on the stratigenic nature of the Bug area granulite complex, in which the primacy and stability of the position of strata-formations relative to each other were preserved throughout the entire time. According to V.P. Kirilyuk, there are no breaks and disagreements between the suites, so he proposes to abandon the identification of the early Precambrian USh Bug Group. And the seven suites identified by him, the youngest of which is 3.8 billion years old, are proposed to be attributed to a single Dniester-Bug series. The authors of both alternative points of view apply to the National Stratigraphic Committee of Ukraine with a proposal to revise the stratigraphic scheme of the Early Precambrian of the USh.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".