MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406804056 · doi:10.1144/sp556-2024-118

Exploring the significance of true substrates in a Pennsylvanian fluvio–estuarine tidal flat

2025· article· en· W4406804056 on OpenAlexafffund
Luís A. Buatois, M. Gabriela Mángano, Christopher G. Maples

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPennsylvanianGeologyTidal flatEstuaryPaleontologyOceanographySedimentStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pennsylvanian Tonganoxie Sandstone of Kansas contains examples of true substrates in tidal rhythmites formed in a tidal flat at the fluvio‐estuarine transition of a macrotidal valley. These surfaces are characterized by an impressive preservation of biogenic and physical sedimentary structures, indicative of the coexistence of low-energy tidal currents and freshwater conditions together with brief periods of subaerial exposure. Biogenic activity corresponds to a time of stasis during or immediately after accumulation of ebb-phase clay followed by low tide. Deposition–stasis–deposition (D–S–D) was involved in the formation and preservation of these true substrates, with only a few instances of deposition–stasis–erosion–deposition (D–S–E–D). Crosscutting relationships among biogenic structures and of these with physical sedimentary structures suggest a tidally controlled taphonomic pathway, which indicates that these true substrates represent short-term time-averaged surfaces at the scale of a few hours, rather than snapshots. True substrates preserved in tidal rhythmites are widespread in other late Paleozoic tide-dominated estuarine deposits of the North American Midcontinent. The likelihood and quality of preservation seem to show spatial and temporal trends at various scales that ultimately reflect a complex interplay of abiotic factors (e.g. sedimentary dynamics) and biotic factors (e.g. secular changes in intensity and depth of bioturbation).

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207