MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014933081 · doi:10.1029/2005gl025145

Crustal velocity structure across the southern Korean Peninsula from seismic refraction survey

2006· article· en· W2014933081 on OpenAlexaff
Hyun‐Moo Cho, Chang‐Eob Baag, Jung Mo Lee, Wooil M. Moon, Heeok Jung, Ki Young Kim, I. Asudeh

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyCrustPeninsulaSeismologyTransectSeismic refractionDiscontinuity (linguistics)Basin and Range ProvinceMantle (geology)CretaceousGeophysicsPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first crustal‐scale controlled source seismic refraction experiment in the southern Korean Peninsula, KCRUST2002, was carried out along a 300‐km long profile across this peninsula in December 2002. Iterative processing and modeling produced a laterally varying layered crustal velocity model. The crust is thickest (34 km) below the Okcheon fold belt in the middle of the transect and thinnest (28 km) at the eastern end where the Cretaceous Gyeongsang basin is characterized by 5 km of low velocity material that constitutes the upper crust. The P velocities in upper and lower crust range from 5.4 to 6.0 km/s and from 6.4 to 6.7 km/s, respectively. The average crustal Poisson's ratio is found to be 0.25–0.27 (Vp/Vs = 1.73−1.78) along the profile. A mid‐crustal velocity discontinuity is recognized in the northwestern part of the transect. The underlying mantle has velocities in the range of 7.9–8.1 km/s.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207