MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measurement and correlation of microstructures: the case of foliation intersection axes

2003· article· en· W1505164167 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Metamorphic Geology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyIntersection (aeronautics)CorrelationOrientation (vector space)Foliation (geology)SchistData setGeometryStatisticsMathematicsPetrologyCartographyGeographyMetamorphic rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent studies have used the relative rotation axis of sigmoidal and spiral‐shaped inclusion trails, known as Foliation Inflexion/Intersection Axis (FIA), to investigate geological processes such as fold mechanisms and porphyroblast growth. The geological usefulness of this method depends upon the accurate measurement of FIA orientations and correct correlation of temporally related FIAs. This paper uses new data from the Canton Schist to assess the variation in FIA orientations within and between samples, and evaluates criteria for correlating FIAs. For the first time, an entire data set of FIA measurements is published, and data are presented in a way that reflects the variation in FIA orientations within individual samples and provides an indication of the reliability of the data. Analysis of 61 FIA trends determined from the Canton Schist indicate a minimum intrasample range in FIA orientations of 30°. Three competing models are presented for correlation of these FIAs, and each of the models employ different correlation criteria. Correlation of FIAs in Model 1 is based on relative timing and textural criteria, while Model 2 uses relative timing, orientation and patterns of changing FIA orientations, and Model 3 uses relative timing and FIA orientation as correlation criteria. Importantly, the three models differ in the spread of FIA orientations within individual sets, and the number of sets distinguished in the data. Relative timing is the most reliable criterion for correlation, followed by textural criteria and patterns of changing FIA orientations from core to rim of porphyroblasts. It is proposed that within a set of temporally related FIAs, the typical spread of orientations involves clustering of data in a 60° range, but outliers occur at other orientations including near‐normal to the peak distribution. Consequently, in populations of FIA data that contain a wide range of orientations, correlation on the basis of orientation is unreliable in the absence of additional criteria. The results of this study suggest that FIAs are best used as semiquantitative indicators of bulk trends rather than an exact measurement for the purpose of quantitative analyses.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.185 · 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