MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386844845 · doi:10.1144/pygs2020-002

Anomalous facies of the Kinnesswood Formation in the Cumbraes Basin: a late Famennian playa complex in SW Scotland

2023· article· en· W4386844845 on OpenAlexafffund
W. G. E. Caldwell, Grant M. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyFaciesCarboniferousOutcropPaleontologyStructural basinDevonianSequence (biology)Glacial periodShoreSea levelLate Devonian extinctionGeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the important geological attributes of the small Cumbraes Basin in the southwestern off-shore Midland Valley of Scotland, the 4 km-long, fragmented but well-exposed section through the Devonian–Carboniferous boundary sequence in southern Great Cumbrae island ranks highly. In a continuous short stretch of the south and west coasts, large portions of this sequence are superbly preserved in tide-washed strandline surfaces and in old post-glacial sea cliff. This enhanced exposure leaves no doubt that the outcrops belong to two, immediately successive, members of the Kinnesswood Formation – the lower the Doughend Sandstone, the upper the Foul Port Mudstone – and that they provide some of the best available exposures on which to base description and interpretation. The facies of the fluviatile Doughend Sandstone shares many characteristics with the underlying Kelly Burn Sandstone of the Upper Old Red Sandstone, whereas that of the Foul Port Mudstone is distinct and unusual, attributed to local tectonics, influenced by movements on older and more major fractures such as the Highland Boundary Fault, with sediment accumulation taking place in a playa-lake complex of considerable extent.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueProceedings of the Yorkshire Geological SocietySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207