MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7079711582 · doi:10.26108/386t-7y75

Carbonate sedimentology of enigmatic limestone beds in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia, Canada

2010· article· en· W7079711582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPennsylvanianCyclothemsCarboniferousSedimentologyFluvialCarbonateSedimentary depositional environmentEvaporiteCoalPaleozoic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Joggins Fossil Cliffs of Nova Scotia, Canada, is one of the best- exposed Carboniferous successions in the world. Intense study over the past 150 years has provided important information about coal- forming and fluvial processes in well preserved strata. A longstanding question is the extent to which marine conditions influenced sedimentation. Understanding this influence is important because seawater salinity is a primary control on vegetation type, and thus coal production in coastal environments. The investigation of limestone beds in the Joggins Formation provides a new perspective on the depositional environments in which coal was produced. Limestone beds are 15 to 100 cm thick and contain ostracodes, bivalves, and echinoderm fragments. They occur primarily within cyclothems at the base of the Joggins Formation interbedded with coal and flood plain deposits. The antithetic relationship in the abundance of ostracodes and bivalves through the thickness of the Joggins Formation, as well as the presence of echinoderms, is interpreted to reflect a gradual transition from marine to fluvial conditions with time. Examination of limestone with cathodoluminescence further reveals that maximum burial depths were probably no more than 60 to 80 m, which is much shallower than recent published estimates. Future work should couple these new findings with vitrinite reflectance data from coals to more completely understand burial history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207