MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2039733112 · doi:10.1139/e03-042

Topography of the crustmantle interface under the Western Superior craton from gravity data

2003· article· en· W2039733112 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bogdan Nitescu, Alexander R. Cruden, R. C. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyCrustCratonMantle (geology)Gravity anomalySeismologyDensity contrastMagmatismCrustal recyclingTectonicsGeophysicsSubductionBouguer anomalyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Moho undulations beneath the western part of the Archean Superior Province have been investigated with a three-dimensional gravity inversion algorithm for a single interface of constant density contrast. Inversion of the complete gravity data set produces unreal effects in the solution due to the ambiguity in the possible sources of some crustal gravity anomalies. To avoid these effects a censored gravity data set was used instead. The inversion results are consistent with reflection and refraction seismic data from the region and, therefore, provide a basis for the lateral correlation of the Moho topography between parallel seismic lines. The results indicate the existence of a major linear east–west-trending rise of the Moho below the metasedimentary English River subprovince, which is paralleled by crustal roots below the granite–greenstone Uchi and Wabigoon subprovinces. This correlation between the subprovincial structure at the surface and deep Moho undulations suggests that the topography of the crust–mantle boundary is related to the tectonic evolution of the Western Superior belts. Although certain features of the crust–mantle boundary are likely inherited from the accretionary and collisional stages of the Western Superior craton, gravity-driven processes triggered by subsequent magmatism and crustal softening may have played a role in both the preservation of those features, as well as in the development of new ones.

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 score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→