MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meteorite impact structures: the good and the bad

2008· article· en· W1994208416 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology Today · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact structureMeteoriteGeologyImpact craterAstrobiologyLandformEarth scienceGeologic recordPaleontologyPlanetSolar SystemExtinction eventExtraterrestrial life

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meteorite impact structures are found on all planetary bodies in the Solar System with a solid surface. On many planets, impact craters are the dominant landform. Earth's active geology, however, tends to rapidly erase impact structures from the geological record, although we know currently of 174 confirmed impact sites. Impact events are destructive and have been linked to at least one of the ‘big five’ mass extinctions over the past 540 Ma. But they also provide certain economic benefits, including the formation of metalliferous ore deposits and hydrocarbon reservoirs. Impact structures can also form new biological niches, which can provide favourable conditions for the survival and evolution of life. Despite this, it was only in the past 40 years that the importance of impact cratering as a geological process was recognized and only during the past 15–20 years that the study of meteorite impact structures has moved into the geological mainstream. There is, therefore, still considerable potential for new and exciting advancements.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · 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