Dinoflagellates from the Miocene Rudeis and Kareem formations borehole GS-78-1, Gulf of Suez, Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Miocene Rudeis and the Kareem formations encountered in the Neogene part of the GS-78-1 borehole, Gulf of Suez produced diverse assemblages of dinoflagellate cysts, spores and pollen. The Early Miocene (Burdigalian) age assigned to the Rudeis Formation and the Early-?Middle Miocene (Langhian–Serravallian) age postulated for the Kareem formation is based on the presence of dinoflagellate cysts. These offer a good basis for biostratigraphic correlation of the Miocene deposits in the Gulf of Suez with those in the Nile Delta and Sinai in Egypt, and also with those present in key sections from the Mediterranean, the Canadian offshore sequences, Northwest Europe and from the North Atlantic. The terrestrial palynoflora (spores and pollen) affords no really precise, independent testimony as to the age of the samples, apart from being generally indicative of a Neogene age, in accord with the established gross age of the sediments, derived mainly from planktonic forams, calcareous nannoplankton and dinoflagellate cysts. The Rudeis Formation was deposited in a relatively deep water environment, based on the abundance fluctuations in miospores and dinoflagellates. However, the miospores recovered from the Rudeis Formation give an equivocal signal with respect to de-positional environment. Such observed incursions of terrestrial elements in the Rudeis Formation could indicate that they might have been carried about within the basin of deposition by the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, or that they were displaced into a deep water setting. The overlying Kareem Formation was identified as an outer continental shelf deposit to upper bathyal (distal)
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".