Sedimentology, stratigraphy and depositional history of the Falher F conglomerate trend, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed sequence stratigraphic analyses indicate that the lower Cretaceous Falher F unit is made up of 4 sandy/pebbly prograding parasequences labeled F1, F2, F3, and F4. Of the parasequences only F3 has a significant (>2m) thickness of conglomerate. Vertical lithological successions through a conglomeratic section suggest that the F3 pebbles were deposited on the upper shoreface and foreshore as part of a conformable, shoaling-upwards package of rocks. Detailed mapping, using core, well logs, production data and 3-D seismic, show that the conglomerates form a 4 km wide linear body deposited along a linear topographic trend. This topographic trend coincides with the northern edge of the underlying upper Devonian Gold Creek (Smokey) reef trend. Furthermore, the longshore termination of the conglomerate is located at a NW-SE trending structural feature that was active during Falher F deposition. Two models could explain the development of a thick conglomerate buildup along a linear topographic step. The first suggests that southward (transgressive) movement of a pebbly barrier was halted at the topographic feature. The second suggests that when the F3 parasequence shoreline arrived at the topographic step progradation rates slowed significantly. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".