MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976563856 · doi:10.1139/e07-025

Deciphering superimposed Ellesmerian and Eurekan deformation, Piper Pass area, northern Ellesmere Island (Nunavut)

2007· article· en· W1976563856 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Karsten Piepjohn, Werner von Gosen, Solveig Estrada, F. Tessensohn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySverdrupOrogenyPaleontologyStructural basinFold (higher-order function)ArcticPaleozoicThrust faultCretaceousTectonicsOutcropGeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tectonic evolution in the Piper Pass area in northern Ellesmere Island (Canadian Arctic) is characterized by the superimposition of two major deformational events: the Paleozoic Ellesmerian Orogeny and the Tertiary Eurekan deformation. It is difficult to separate the structures formed during each deformation in the parts of the Canadian Arctic in which the post-Ellesmerian and pre-Eurekan Sverdrup Basin is not preserved (Hazen Fold Belt, Central Ellesmere Fold Belt). In the vicinity of the Lake Hazen Fault Zone in the Piper Pass area, kilometre-scale kink folds, cleavage planes and SSE-directed thrust faults are unconformably overlain by Permian through Tertiary rocks of the Sverdrup Basin, which clearly indicates that they are related to the Ellesmerian Orogeny. However, the steep faults of the Lake Hazen Fault Zone are characterized by possible lateral movements and by NNW–SSE compression that cut through or affect both the pre-Ellesmerian Franklinian strata, as well as the post-Ellesmerian Sverdrup Basin deposits. These structures can clearly be assigned to post-mid Cretaceous movements of the Eurekan deformation. The Piper Pass area is a key area in which it is possible to recognize and distinguish Ellesmerian from Eurekan structures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207