Flambeau Anomaly: A High-Conductivity Anomaly in the Southern Extension of the Canadian Shield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical resistivity measurements in northern Wisconsin show the presence of a large high-conductivity anomaly in the crust. The anomaly, which we refer to as the Flambeau Anomaly, is approximately 20 km wide, lies roughly along 46°N latitude, and extends east of 91°W longitude for more than 100 km. Detailed airborne electromagnetic surveys over parts of the anomaly show that the anomalous region consists of four to six roughly parallel conductive formations. Core samples from these formations indicate that graphite, sulfides, and iron formation are the principle conductive materials causing the anomaly. Numerical analysis of resistivity soundings surrounding the Flambeau Anomaly indicates the following layered earth crustal structure: (1) a surficial cover of 0 to 100 m thickness has a resistivity of a few hundred ohm meters; (2) a second layer has a resistivity of a few thousand ohm meters and a thickness of 5 to 10 km; (3) a third layer has a resistivity of greater than 105 ohm m; (4) at depths of 15 to 25 km the resistivity decreases to the order of 1000 ohm m. Our model of the Flambeau Anomaly consists of five thin vertical half plane conductors. Numerical modeling indicates that the conductors extend to a depth of the order of 10 km. The Flambeau Anomaly appears to be a major structural feature in the southern extension of the Canadian Shield.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".