Study of the depositional environments of the Halfway Formation, British Columbia, Canada / Adel Mohamed Hassan El Tawashi.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The upper sands of the discontinuous Halfway Formation \nto the northeast of Fort St. John were formed as barrier \nislands deposited perpendicular,or nearly perpendicular to \nthe dip of the paleoslope of the Western Canadian \nSedimentary Basin. These upper sands of the area of study \nwere deposited during a transgressive phase of the Triassic \nsea to the northeast,and formed the basal unit of an \nonlapping sequence comprising the Halfway and the Charlie \nLake Formations that disconformably overstepped the \nerosional surface on the silty dolomite of the Doig \nFormation. The Weasel sand body was deposited during a \npause in the transgression,and then was submerged by a rapid rise in sea level. The Wildmint to Beatton barrier islands \ntrend was deposited during a second pause in the \ntransgression.These barrier islands would appear to have \nbeen deposited under arid conditions resulting in restricted \nlagoonal environments. The lower sands of the discontinuous \nHalfway Formation which only occur at a few locations in \nsouthern Willow and Wildmint ,would appear to have resulted \nfrom tidal inlet action that eroded channels into the Doig \nFormation below the base of the upper sands forming the \nbarrier island complex. These later were filled with sand. Then this barrier island trend was submerged by renewed \ntransgression of the Triassic sea.The source of the \nsediments comprising the discontinuous Halfway Formation \nprobably was to the north and northeast of the area of \nstudy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".