Regional gravity setting of the Sudbury Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the vicinity of Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, the boundary between the Southern and Superior tectonic provinces is overlain by the elliptical Sudbury Structure. On the basis of gravity modeling, genesis of the Sudbury Structure has been attributed to either a magmatic origin (having a dense hidden differentiate zone) or a meteorite impact origin (there being no dense hidden mass). The difference between the two gravity models centers on the problem of regional-residual separation. As shown by numerous previous studies, any such separation of components is nonunique. This becomes especially problematic when, as in Sudbury, a portion of the near-surface geology has a similar orientation and dimension to more deep-seated sources. In this paper, several numerical methods (upward continuation, downward continuation, wavelength filtering, trend-surface analysis) for determining the regional component of the gravity field associated with the Sudbury Structure have been applied and evaluated. Of the numerical methods used, the upward and downward continuation operators provided the most insight into the deep structural controls of the Sudbury Basin. Our preferred interpretation of the regional gravity field invokes a two-component structure. Underlying the southern half of the Sudbury Structure is a laterally continuous gravity anomaly that is probably associated with a zone of uplifted Huronian volcanics. The gravity anomaly under the northern portion of the Sudbury Structure has a more restricted spatial extent. The close association between the northern limit of the gravity anomaly and the surface outcrop of the Levack Gneiss suggests the source of this anomaly is probably a slab of dense Levack Gneiss. This interpretation favors a meteorite impact origin for the Sudbury Structure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".