MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1639007758 · doi:10.1029/2004gc000733

Investigating the Lake Bosumtwi impact structure: Insight from numerical modeling

2004· article· en· W1639007758 on OpenAlexaff
N. A. Artemieva, T. Karp, B. Milkereit

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterGeologyEjectaGeophysicsImpact structureProjectileBrecciaStage (stratigraphy)DrillingAsymmetrySeismologyPaleontologyAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current topography of the Lake Bosumtwi crater and some of its structural dimensions have been determined by geophysical methods. We combine these data with sophisticated numerical models to evaluate the cratering process itself (for example, melt and tektite generation) as well as to test the modeling code. The geophysical maps show some asymmetry in plan view, with the main anomaly north of the crater center. The simulations of the early stage show asymmetric patterns only in ejecta and tektite distributions, while the late stage is modeled for the vertical impact without any asymmetry. We estimate the projectile size from scaling laws and then, varying material properties, reproduce a crater, which is similar to the Bosumtwi, but too deep. Bulking allows us to reconcile differences between the model results and the observed topography. Shock melt estimates are in good agreement with the Bosumtwi magnetic signature. Modeled distribution of tektites assumes an impact angle of 30°–45° and an impact direction from the N‐NE. The combination of numerical models and field evidence not only provides necessary information for upcoming scientific drilling of the structure but also suggests interesting and well‐suited drill sites. Besides the central uplift and the annular moat with a suggested thick breccia cover, drilling at the location of the geophysical anomalies and comparison of downrange and transversal locations will provide new insight into preimpact and impact‐induced asymmetries.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations65
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Geophysics GeosystemsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207