MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multi‐genetic origin of the continental Moho: insights from L<scp>ithoprobe</scp>

2005· article· en· W2012391650 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologySubductionMantle (geology)UnderplatingContinental crustForearcProterozoicOceanic crustPlate tectonicsCrustPaleontologySeismologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reviews four hypotheses for the origin of the continental crust–mantle boundary and discusses seismic parameters with which these hypotheses might be tested. The relict Moho hypothesis posits that the oceanic Moho is preserved during continental assembly; the magmatic underplating hypothesis posits formation of a new Moho by episodic emplacement of sill‐like intrusive bodies; the metamorphic ( or metasomatic ) front hypothesis posits that the Moho is overprinted by a phase transformation; and the regional décollement hypothesis posits that the Moho behaves as a structural detachment. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and examples from the Canadian L ithoprobe program suggest that all four may be applicable in different regions of North America. Comparison of seismic images from a fossil subduction zone with modern subduction at Cascadia suggests that serpentinization of the forearc mantle, a previously unrecognized mechanism for overprinting and erasing the reflection Moho, may have occurred in the Proterozoic.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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)0.0070.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.190 · 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