MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581967027 · doi:10.7202/032965ar

Pop-Up Structures and the Fracture Pattern in the Balsam Lake Area, Southern Ontario

2007· article· en· W1581967027 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Andrea Loy Rutty, Alexander R. Cruden

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGeologyOutcropLineamentTectonicsFault (geology)Joint (building)BedrockGeomorphologySeismologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An examination of topographic lineaments detectable in Landsat TM images and measurement of joints in outcrop in the Balsam Lake area reveals a systematic bedrock fracture pattern with three principal sets oriented 091°, 027°, and 152°. The 027° trend is parallel to a major aeromagnetic anomaly, the Niagara-Pickering Linear Zone (NPLZ), which underlies the Balsam Lake area and is thought to mark the sub-Paleozoic continuation of the Proterozoic Central Metasedimentary Belt Boundary Zone (CMBBZ). Possible origins of the main joint sets due to Acadian (091° set), Alleghanian (152° set) and St. Lawrence rift system tectonics (091° and 027° sets) are discussed. En-echelon pop-up structures have a mean principal trend of 118°. They displace Lake Algonquin paleobeaches, suggesting formation less than 12,500 years ago. The orientation of the pop-up structures is subnormal to the current in situ maximum horizontal stress direction, SHmax (020°), and is parallel to members of the 091° joint set, indicating possible nuclea-tion on favourably-oriented pre-existing joints. These pop-ups are the only features in the Balsam Lake area with strong evidence for a neotectonic age.

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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207