MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact structures in Canada, by Richard A. F. Grieve

2007· article· en· W2023423351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. A. Kring

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Geology in Latin America and Caribbean
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoulevardBayCenter (category theory)CitationArt historySpace (punctuation)HistoryLibrary scienceArchaeologyPhilosophyComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cratonic regions of the world provide rich libraries of remnant impact craters, and Canada is one of the richest among them.For nearly six decades, Canadian scientists have harnessed this natural resource to produce some of the best geologic descriptions of impact craters in the world.As described in Impact structures in Canada, this initiative began at the Dominion Observatory under the direction of C. S. Beals in the 1950s.Success was achieved early in the program with a comprehensive geophysical and drilling campaign at Brent crater, which remains one of the bestcharacterized simple craters in the world.Craters in Canada have a broad distribution of ages, ranging from 1 to 1850 Ma, providing a detailed measure of specific events that shaped the Earth over nearly 2 billion years, and broader insights into processes that shaped Earth throughout its entire 4.5-billion-year history.Although the record of cratering in Canada is rich, impact structures have been partially eroded.Rather than being a detriment, however, this created a special opportunity to explore subsurface components of impact craters, providing important information about the structural evolution that occurs as a function of crater size.It also provided an opportunity to study the distribution of shock-metamorphosed products, ranging from shatter cones to multi-kilometer-thick impact-melt sheets.These studies have, in turn, led to empirical scaling relationships that are applied to impact sites throughout the world and on other planetary surfaces.This book synthesizes the results of those studies in an accessible way.The volume begins with a 22-page introduction about impact craters and impact-cratering processes.The introduction is very broad, addressing a series of important issues: the spatial, temporal, and size distribution of craters; cratering rate; crater morphology; processes associated with the excavation and modification of craters, including the deposition of impactites; subsolidus shock effects; impact melting; distribution of shock metamorphism; and gravity, magnetic, and seismic signatures of impact sites.I particularly like the discourse in this chapter, because Grieve explains the development of many concepts and how they were influenced by geologic evidence recovered from impact sites.He also identifies several issues that still need to be addressed.The introduction is so complete that it has become the first paper I recommend to new students.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicBotany and Geology in Latin America and CaribbeanFrench-language works237,207