Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isostatic gravity anomaly relations in the United States are examined on a regional basis as depicted by an anomaly map prepared by the author, and the relations are shown on eight east-west transcontinental profiles and one north-south profile. The isostatic anomalies are based on the Airy-Heiskanen concept of isostasy for a sea-level column 30 km thick with a crustal density of 2.67 g/cm3 and a mantle density of 3.27 /cm3. In a north-south direction, the regional anomaly gradient is opposite in sign on the two sides of the continent, which suggests torsional deformation of the crust about a point or line passing through the midcontinent region. One tectonic force that might have contributed to this pattern is Pleistocene glacial loading in eastern Canada. In terms of geologic structure, it is found that the anomaly relations vary with geologic province. In the shield area lying between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains, the major basins, in general, are marked by positive anomaly values, and the major uplifts by negative anomaly values. In the Rocky Mountains province and westward to the coast of California, the relations are reversed, negative anomalies being associated with basins and positive anomalies with uplifts. Changes in mean crustal density would explain the relations noted in the mid-continent area. In the western states, basins and uplifts appear to result from tectonic forces, whereby fault-bounded blocks are physically displaced from their natural equilibrium position. In general, granitic plutons are characterized by negative anomaly values, as are areas of andesitic extrusion. Negative anomalies also characterize the Colorado plateau and the basin and range area. Seismic measurements of crustal thickness suggest that regional areas of positive anomalies are associated with areas of abnormal crustal thickness, and that negative anomalies characterize areas of subnormal crustal thickness. Clearly, there is no single universal mechanism governing isostasy. The mass distribution at depth appears to range from that defined by the Airy-Heiskanen concept of isostasy to that embodied in the Pratt-Hayford concept.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".