MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1665925777

Development of an arcuate fold-thrust belt as a result of basement configuration: an example from the Rocky Mountain Front Range, Montana

2010· article· en· W1665925777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline M. Burberry, David L. Cannon, Terry Engelder, John Cosgrove

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFold (higher-order function)Front (military)BasementFold and thrust beltRange (aeronautics)ThrustGeomorphologyPaleontologyGeodesySeismologyMining engineeringGeographyEngineeringAerospace engineeringTectonicsArchaeologyOceanographyForeland basinMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sawtooth Range forms part of the Montana Disturbed Belt in the Front Ranges of the Rocky Mountains, along strike from the Alberta Syncline in the Canadian Rockies. The belt developed in the footwall to the Lewis Thrust during the Sevier orogeny and is similar in deformation style to the Canadian Foothills, with a series of stacked thrust sheets carrying Palaeozoic carbonates. The Sawtooth Range can be divided into an inner and outer deformed belt, separated by exposed fold structures in the overlying clastic sequence. Structures in the deformed belts plunge into the culmination of the NE-trending Scapegoat-Bannatyne trend, part of the Great Falls Tectonic Zone (GFTZ). Other mapped faults, including the Pendroy fault zone to the north, parallel this trend. A number of mechanisms have been proposed for the development of primary arcs in fold-thrust belts, including linkage of two thrust belts with different strikes, differential transport of segments of the belt, the geometry of the indentor, local plate heterogeneity and pre-existing basement configuration. Arcuate belts may also develop as a result of later bending of an initially straight orogen. In the Swift Dam area, part of the outer belt of the Sawtooth Range, the strike of the belt changes from 165 to 150. This apparent change in strike is accommodated by a sinistral lateral ramp in the Swift Dam Thrust. In addition, this outer belt becomes broader to the north in the Swift Dam region. However, the outer belt becomes extremely narrow in the Teton Canyon region to the south, and the deformation front is characterised by an intercutaneous wedge structure, rather than the trailing-edge imbricate fan seen to the north. A similar imbricate fan structure is seen to the south, in the Sun River Canyon region, corresponding well to the classic model of a deformation belt governed by a dominant thrust sheet, after Boyer & Elliot. The Sawtooth Range can be described as an active-roof duplex in the footwall to the dominant Lewis thrust slab. Analysis of the transport directions of the thrust sheets in the Range implies that the inner arcuate belt is a secondary arc, but that the later, outer arcuate belt formed by divergent transport. This two-stage development model is strongly influenced by the basement configuration. The deformation front of the outer arc is governed by NNW-striking Proterozoic normal fault structures. The entire Sawtooth Range duplex is uplifted over an earlier, NE-trending basement structure (the GFTZ), forming a termination in the Lewis slab. The interaction of these two fault trends allows the development of a linear deformation front in the foreland Jurassic-Cretaceous sequence, but an arcuate belt in the Palaeozoic carbonate sheets. Thus, the width and style of the outer arcuate belt also varies along the strike of the belt.

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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207