MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023491773 · doi:10.1139/e11-004

North Atlantic spreading axes terminate in the continental cul-de-sacs of Baffin Bay and the Laptev Sea

2011· article· en· W2023491773 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
T.C.R Pulvertaft, P.R Dawes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyBayNorth American PlatePlate tectonicsContinental shelfPaleontologyTransform faultArcticOceanographyPaleogenePrecambrianRidgeTectonicsSeismologyCretaceous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In conventional plate-tectonic models, an independent Greenland plate is supposed to have drifted in the Paleogene along a transform fault through Nares Strait that links the two branches of the North Atlantic spreading system. However, this postulated structure — widely known as the Wegener Fault — cannot be detected by any means in the southern part of the strait. The mapped geology flanking this part of the strait is identical, with no evidence whatsoever of any strike-slip displacement or compressional deformation, and geophysical data provide no support for the existence of such tectonism offshore. We analyse the serious drawback of having a major transform located within a Precambrian crustal block stable since the Paleozoic and emphasize that the extinct Labrador – Baffin Bay spreading axis is but a mirror image of the active North Atlantic – Gakkel Ridge that terminates in a continental cul-de-sac in the Laptev Sea. We conclude that, in the Baffin Bay – Nares Strait region, there is only one plate (North American) and that the extension required to absorb Labrador – Baffin Bay spreading is to be found in structures within the Canadian Arctic Islands.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207