MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994990294 · doi:10.1029/2011eo080002

Deep Seismic Investigation of the Ontong Java Plateau

2011· article· en· W1994990294 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Seiichi Miura, Naoto Noguchi, Shuichi Kodaira, Yoshio Fukao, Millard F. Coffin, Simon A. Kawagle, R. Verave

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsGeologyCrustMantle (geology)Mantle plumeOceanic crustSeismologySubductionPlateau (mathematics)Plate tectonicsPacific oceanMeteor (satellite)JavaGeophysicsTectonicsLithosphereOceanographyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ontong Java Plateau (OJP; see Figure 1a), in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean, is one of the largest oceanic plateaus on Earth, covering 1.86 million square kilometers—equivalent to roughly one third of the contiguous United States [ Coffin and Eldholm , 1994]. This voluminous plateau is thought to have formed about 120 million years ago and to have caused significant global environmental changes; however, a consensus has not been reached on how the OJP formed. Competing theories include formation through a mantle plume, a meteor impact, and fast spreading ridges. Detailed knowledge of the OJP's crustal and upper mantle structure is necessary to help distinguish among existing models and to develop new models of how the OJP formed. Previous seismic studies acquired data by exploding charges at the ocean's surface and, through seismic analyses of travel times, deducing horizons of reflections and refractions below the ocean floor. However, most of these studies used relatively low energy shots and sparse source and receiver intervals and thus were unable to unambiguously determine the depth of the crust‐mantle boundary.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207