MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061190483

Paleontology and stratigraphy of upper Coniacianemiddle Santonian ammonite zones and application to erosion surfaces and marine transgressive strata in Montana and Alberta

2005· article· en· W7061190483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsAmmoniteCretaceousStratigraphyBiostratigraphyTransgressiveMarine transgressionErosionCenomanian
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erosional surfaces are present in middle and upper Coniacian rocks in Montana and Alberta, and probably at the base of the middle Santonian in the Western Interior of Canada. These erosional surfaces are biostratigraphically constrained using inoceramid bivalves and ammonites, which are used to define lower, middle, and upper substages of both the Coniacian and Santonian stages of the Upper Cretaceous in this region. The most detailed biostratigraphy associated with these erosional surfaces concerns the MacGowan Concretionary Bed in the Kevin Member of the Marias River Shale in Montana, where the bed lies disconformably on middle or lowermost upper Coniacian strata, and is overlain by upper Coniacian beds. Surface and subsurface investigations in west-central Alberta reveal that the Bad Heart Formation, bounded by unconformities, is about the age of the MacGowan Concretionary Bed. Coniacian and Santonian strata are present elsewhere in Alberta and adjoining areas, but little has been published concerning the Santonian megafossils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→