MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017881067 · doi:10.1029/2001gl012959

Wide‐angle reflectivity across the Torngat Orogen, NE Canada

2001· article· en· W2017881067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Funck, Keith E. Louden, Jeremy Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTransectReflection (computer programming)ReflectivitySeismologyRefractionOpticsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from a Lithoprobe refraction/wide‐angle reflection seismic transect across the Torngat Orogen in NE Canada were depth‐migrated to produce a record section similar to near‐vertical incidence seismic data. Densely spaced airgun shots and a station spacing between 9 and 25 km were able to produce a low‐frequency image of the lower crustal reflectivity for most of the transect. Over the western end of the profile, a series of east‐dipping lower crustal reflectors continue down to the Moho, which is clearly defined at a depth of 36 to 38 km. The lower crustal reflectors can be correlated laterally for up to 80 km. This reflection fabric is interpreted as evidence for thick‐skinned deformation caused by convergence of the Nain and Superior provinces. Over the eastern end of the line, reflectors in the Nain Province are less continuous and may indicate steeply dipping faults, which have not been modified during formation of the orogen.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207