MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1616547970 · doi:10.1029/2005gl023157

Are some domes the ghosts of basins?

2005· article· en· W1616547970 on OpenAlexaff
Jillian Pearse, R. C. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinSedimentary basinCrustBack-strippingTectonic subsidenceInversion (geology)SeismologySedimentary rockPetrologyExtensional definitionSubsidencePull apart basinTectonicsGeomorphologyGeophysicsSedimentary basin analysisPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inversion of formerly extensional basins by compressional reactivation of existing faults is believed to be an important mechanism for the exhumation of sedimentary basins. We propose an additional mechanism for the exhumation of some sedimentary basins which does not require compression, and which completely inverts a basin into a dome. In basins formed by intra‐crustal density loads, sublithospheric heating, however caused, will reduce the effective elastic thickness of the crust, thereby reactivating subsidence. If the crust is sufficiently weakened that it no longer supports the dense load, we predict the long‐term result to be detachment of the load followed by uplift and exhumation of the basin. Finite‐element modeling indicates that this can occur for geologically possible load densities in high heat flow regions. Total upward displacement of material from depth can be as much as 10 km in some cases, enough to exhume the basin completely.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→