MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538984895 · doi:10.1029/2004gl021286

Feeding methane vents and gas hydrate deposits at south Hydrate Ridge

2004· article· en· W1538984895 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. Tréhu, Peter B. Flemings, Nathan L. Bangs, J. Chevallier, Eulália Gràcia, Joel E. Johnson, Char‐Shine Liu, Xiaoli Liu, Michael Riedel, Marta E. Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersUnited States Science Support ProgramPennsylvania State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsClathrate hydrateGeologyMethaneRidgeSeafloor spreadingPetrologyTurbiditeGeomorphologyHydrateGeochemistrySedimentPaleontologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Log and core data document gas saturations as high as 90% in a coarse‐grained turbidite sequence beneath the gas hydrate stability zone (GHSZ) at south Hydrate Ridge, in the Cascadia accretionary complex. The geometry of this gas‐saturated bed is defined by a strong, negative‐polarity reflection in 3D seismic data. Because of the gas buoyancy, gas pressure equals or exceeds the overburden stress immediately beneath the GHSZ at the summit. We conclude that gas is focused into the coarse‐grained sequence from a large volume of the accretionary complex and is trapped until high gas pressure forces the gas to migrate through the GHSZ to seafloor vents. This focused flow provides methane to the GHSZ in excess of its proportion in gas hydrate, thus providing a mechanism to explain the observed coexistence of massive gas hydrate, saline pore water and free gas near the summit.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations245
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207