Lowermost Cambrian Ichnofabrics from the Chapel Island Formation, Newfoundland: Implications for Cambrian Substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bioturbation long has been ‘blamed’ for eliminating late Proterozoic-style sedimentary structures and fabrics. While the presence of diverse and complex burrows in lowermost Cambrian strata is indisputable, analysis of Precambrian–Cambrian successions in southeast Newfoundland demonstrate that this burrowing style did not produce typical Phanerozoic-style ichnofabrics. Three hundred meters of the siltstone/sandstone facies of member 2 of the Chapel Island Formation were examined in the area of the Precambrian–Cambrian boundary stratotype. Gyrolithes, Planolites, and Skolithos occur as sand infills ubiquitously throughout siltstone beds, most commonly without direct contact with an overlying sandstone bed, as if “floating” in the siltstone. In contrast, Treptichnus pedum occurs as sand infills adhering onto the base of thin sandstone beds that have different grain size and texture than the burrow infills. Both of these burrow types represent a style of preservation in which the burrows are unattached to an overlying bed of the casting sediment. These styles of preservation occur frequently in the Treptichnus pedum Zone and continue into the Rusophycus avalonensis Zone in spite of an increase in trace fossil diversity. The sandstone beds are bioturbated only very rarely. The resultant fabric produced by floating and, in particular, adhering burrows in these shallow marine deposits appears to be characteristic of many Lower Cambrian rocks. Silt layers appear to have been firm enough to have supported open burrows, likely as a result of a negligible mixed layer. This line of reasoning would predict that preservation of this type would be uncommon in younger strata deposited in open marine settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".