New Data on Late Paleozoic Conglomerates of Wrangel Island and Their Geological Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conglomerates are widespread in the Paleozoic deposits of Wrangel Island and occur at different stratigraphic levels of the sedimentary cover. Conglomerates of the Central tectonic zone of Wrangel Island previously classified as Carboniferous are represented by two types, which differ in the composition of their components. The conglomerates of the first type have a complex structure. They are dominated by fragments of metamorphic schists and mafic volcanics. The conglomerates of the second type are dominated by rounded fragments of quartz, limestones, and faunal remains. The composition of the conglomerates of the second type is similar to that of intraformational conglomerates from the sections of the Northern tectonic zone. The Guadalupian–Lopingian (Middle–Late Permian) age of these conglomerates was reliably established through the analysis of faunal remains. Thus, conglomerates of the first and second types in the Central zone of Wrangel Island are most likely of different ages, while the later ones (conglomerates of the second type) can be attributed to the Middle–Upper Permian. Two horizons of different-aged conglomerates in the Central zone of Wrangel Island indicate local rearrangements at the beginning of the Pennsylvanian (the Bashkirian Age) and Guadalupian–Lopingian (Middle–Late Permian). Similar rearrangements, accompanied by unconformities, can also be traced in the Permian deposits of the Sverdrup basin of Arctic Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".