MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1550691537

A Phanerozoic Time Chart for Canada

2011· article· en· W1550691537 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew D. Miall

Notice bibliographique

RevueGeoscience Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrecambrianTerranePhanerozoicGeologyPaleontologyGeological surveyArchaeologyEarth scienceTectonicsGeographyCenozoicStructural basin
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION When Nick Eyles and I compiled our book Canada Rocks (Eyles and Miall 2007) no nationwide synthesis of the geology of Canada had been written since the Geological Survey of Canada’s Economic Geology Report #1 (Douglas 1970). The Geological Society of America’s Decade of North American Geology (DNAG), spanning the 1980s, generated a suite of regional volumes covering the entire continent, including Canada. The Canadian portion of the project was supervised by the Geological Survey of Canada and resulted in four regional volumes, plus a volume on part of the Canadian Shield and one on the Quaternary record. However, these were written for specialists and either did not include regional syntheses or incorporated highly technical summaries directed primarily at a professional audience. In our planning for Canada Rocks we debated at length whether to adopt a ‘time-slice’ approach for the narrative or a ‘regional’ approach. The Canadian Shield is itself a distinctive ‘region’ of Canada, and was therefore treated as such (Chapter 4), but the description of its geology followed a sequential approach based on the age of the various terranes and orogenies. This worked well, in part because many of the Precambrian terranes are quite geographically limited in area or distribution, and therefore the description of each unit served as a miniregional summary as well. For the Phanerozoic the decision was more problematic. A timeslice approach works well for a description of the evolution of life and for the broader features of global geology, and we used this arrangement for the summary chapter (Chapter 3), which provides a concise history of the geology of Canada from the Archean to the present day. For the Phanerozoic history of Canada, we decided that a ‘regional’ approach to the geology would work better. We predicted that most of our readers would be interested primarily in the region of Canada in which they lived, and that regional chapters for each region would therefore immediately satisfy their major interest. A regional approach allows for a continuous narrative through the various tectonic and other episodes for a given area, gradually building the geological framework for the landscape that exists at the present day. We used this approach for the Phanerozoic development of the four major regions of the country in four separate chapters (the Craton, Eastern Canada, Arctic Canada and Western Canada). The one disadvantage of this approach is that, without considerable repetition, it is difficult to discuss regional histories in the context of the continental and global setting, and almost completely eliminates comparisons between the various regions. One of the most interesting aspects of Canadian geology is the plate tectonic history, in which events on one margin of the continent are matched by contemporaneous, but different, types of event on another margin. This kind of information tends to get lost in a regional approach. The time-slice approach can, by contrast, keep a focus on continental and global events, but at the expense of a very fragmentary treatment of regional geology. A description of the geology and geological history of any given area might require dipping into four or five different chapters. For the non-specialist reader, we judged that this would be confusing. The accompanying chart (Fig. 1) has been developed primarily so that the regional geologies of the different parts of Canada may be related to each other in terms of the time sequence of the major events.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,060
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,986

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,148
Écart entre enseignants0,135 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGeoscience CanadaMême sujetGeological and Geochemical AnalysisTravaux en français237 207