MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1967730717 · doi:10.1139/e03-030

Basin architecture and density structure beneath the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia

2003· article· en· W1967730717 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C Lowe, Sonya A. Dehler, B. C. Zelt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyGeological Survey of Canada
FundersBritish Geological Survey
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinBasementTectonicsSubmarine pipelineSeismologyPaleontologyOceanographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Georgia Basin is located within one of the most seismically active and populated areas on Canada's west coast. Over the last decade, geological investigations have resolved important details concerning the basin's shallow structure and composition. Yet, until recently, relatively little was known about deeper portions of the basin. In this study, new seismic velocity information is employed to develop a 3-dimensional density model of the basin. Comparison of the calculated gravity response of this model with the observed gravity field validates the velocity model at large scales. At smaller scales, several differences between model and observed gravity fields are recognized. Analysis of these differences and correlation with independent geoscience data provide new insights into the structure and composition of the basin-fill and underlying basement. Specifically, four regions with thick accumulations of unconsolidated Pleistocene and younger sediments, which were not resolved in the velocity model, are identified. Their delineation is particularly important for studies of seismic ground-motion amplification and offshore aggregate assessment. An inconsistency between the published geology and the seismic structure beneath Texada and Lasqueti Islands in the central Strait of Georgia is investigated; however, the available gravity data cannot preferentially validate either the geologic interpretation or the seismic model in this region. We interpret a northwest-trending and relatively linear gradient extending from Savory Island in the north to Boundary Bay in the south as the eastern margin of Wrangellia beneath the basin. Finally, we compare Georgia Basin with the Everett and Seattle basins in the southern Cascadia fore arc. This comparison indicates that while a single mechanism may be controlling present-day basin tectonics and deformation within the fore arc this was not the case for most of the Mesozoic and Tertiary time periods.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→