Geology of the East Siberian Sea, Russian Arctic, from seismic images: Structures, evolution, and implications for the evolution of the Arctic Ocean Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kinematics and history of the opening of the Amerasia Basin are closely linked to the geology of the wide shelves surrounding the Arctic Ocean. In this context, multichannel seismic reflection data from the virtually unexplored shelf of the East Siberian Sea, Russian Arctic, are discussed in combination with potential field data. Three seismic marker horizons were defined and mapped. Their ages were linked to main tectonic and regional events and to onshore findings. The data reveal that there is no continuation of the large rift basins from the Laptev Shelf onto the East Siberian Shelf and there are no indications for the previously defined several hundred kilometers wide Blagoveshchensk Basin. The East Siberian Shelf is best described as an epicontinental platform that synsedimentarily subsided continuously since Late Cretaceous times with stronger subsidence to the northeast, resulting in the formation of a large depocenter. Some form of extensional/transtensional stresses affected the area and created relatively small ESE–WNW striking basins within this depocenter. These basins are filled with >6 km thick Late Cretaceous to Tertiary sediments. The general dip of the platform of the East Siberian Shelf toward the northeast may be explained by dip‐slip movements along a major transform fault that is proposed by the rotation model for the opening of the Amerasia Basin. For the evolution of small sag‐shaped basins within the East Siberian Depocenter we suggest a link to the opening of the Eurasia Basin instead of to the opening of the Makarov Basin.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".