Regional 3D geophysical investigation of the Sudbury Structure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 3D geologic and structural setting of the Sudbury Structure was predicted by an integration of surface and subsurface geologic data with 2.5D modeling of high-resolution airborne magnetic and gravity data using 3D GeoModeller software. Unlike other CAD-based 3D software, GeoModeller uses the field interpolator method, whereby contacts of rock units are assumed to be equipotential surfaces, whereas orientation data determine the gradient and direction of the surfaces. Contacts and orientation variables are cokriged to generate 3D continuous surfaces for each geologic unit. Our 3D geologic model was qualitatively evaluated by forward computing the predicted gravity response at 1 m above topography and by comparing this response to the measured gravity field. Large-scale structures within the Onaping Formation and Archean basement, which overlie and underlie the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC), respectively, were not the cause of the linear gravity high in the center of the Sudbury Structure. We suggested that the deformation of the initial circular SIC may have commenced under the Sudbury Basin due to the reversal of the normal faults related to the Huronian rift system during the Penokean orogeny, therefore resulting into a north verging fold at the base of the SIC in the south range. This new interpretation was consistent with the magnetic and gravity data and honoured most of the significant seismic reflectors in the Lithoprobe seismic sections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it