MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038668363 · doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.2001.186.01.11

The nature and origin of asymmetric arrays of shear surfaces in fault zones

2001· article· en· W2038668363 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven Wojtal

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear (geology)GeologyFault (geology)SeismologyPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mid- to upper-crustal fault zones often possess arrays of shear surfaces whose traces on sections perpendicular to the fault surface and parallel to the ac -plane conform with one or more of the ‘Riedel shear’ orientations. These shear surfaces often are oblique to the transport plane, however, so arrays exhibit monoclinic rather than orthorhombic symmetry. In a mudstone-dominated mélange in Humber Arm Supergroup strata in the Bay of Islands, Newfoundland, and in serpentinites from the base of the Bay of Islands complex, shear surfaces have orientations inclined to major fault-zone boundaries and an inferred ac -plane for macroscopic fault-related deformation. Deformation in these zones exhibits an overall monoclinic symmetry. The 3D, asymmetric character of shear surface fabrics suggests that a factor other than stress or the symmetric strain rate tensor controlled their formation. The velocity gradient tensor in a steady, non-coaxial shearing flow possesses a symmetry consistent with monoclinic fabrics. Shear surfaces in asymmetric arrays may initiate with predictable orientations relative to the velocity gradient tensor and then rotate toward flow apophyses, which identify stable positions in steady, 3D flows.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207