Sedimentation models for glacial deltaic successions in the Thunder Bay area / by Susan Patricia Craig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comparison of three mapped successions in northern Ontario to glacial deltas \nreviewed in the literature results in the definition of four end-member depositional \nenvironments for glacial deltaic sedimentation. Similar processes of sedimentation occur \nwithin two main glacial delta types, distal-fed, and ice-contact. Distal-fed deltas divide into \nnonglacial and ice-influenced. The other two end member types defined are subglacial and \nsupraglacial ice-contact deltas. \nFine-grained laminated beds sedimented by interflows and overflows, as well as diamict \nand subaqueous outwash deposits underlie the glacial deltaic sequences. The prodelta region \nconsists of multiple reverse-graded beds, massive units, and laminated sediments deposited \nfrom interflows and overflows, and minor rippled units indicating intermittent underflows. \nWithin the delta front underflows deposited rippled and graded units, and occasionally planar \ncross-stratified units were sedimented by grainflows. The delta plain contains trough cross-stratified \nsands and gravels which infill multiple distributary channels. Dropstone deposition \nwas restricted to the prodelta and delta front regions of ice-influenced distal-fed deltas, and \nice-contact deltas. \nDistributary mouth bars, large scale cyclic sedimentation, subaqueous outwash systems \noverlain by a glacial deltaic sequence, multiple processes of sedimentation within the delta \nfront, and reworking of glaciogenic deposits have not previously been documented in glacial \ndeltaic systems. These deposits and processes, as well as the inability to define the strandline \nposition indicate glacial deltaic systems are complex.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".