MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056188800 · doi:10.1130/ges000144.1

Whole crustal response to late Tertiary extension near Prince Rupert, British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2056188800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. S. Hollister, John Diebold, Triparna Das

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosphere · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyExtension (predicate logic)ArchaeologySeismologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dixon Entrance, British Columbia. The data show grabens as much as 3 km deep, mid-crustal west-dipping refl ecting packages interpreted as normal sense shear zones, middle to lower crustal subhorizontal refl ecting horizons, a generally refl ective Moho, and arches of the Moho with relief of as much as 3 km (Moho depths 24.8-27.5 km). Based on dated extension-related features reported for the region, east-west extension occurred between 40 and 20 Ma and may have been concentrated between 25 and 20 Ma. If the pre-late Tertiary crustal thickness of east Dixon Entrance was the same as that of the mainland to the east (34 km), the minimum amount of crustal thinning in the study area was 30%. Thinning of the whole crust above a stronger mantle lithosphere is implied by the extension-related features that we describe from the brittle upper crust down through the ductile lower crust to the Moho. Our data confi rm and extend the interpretation of crustal extension by Lowe and Dehler and Dehler et al. for Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. Integration of our results with the geologic history across the study area leads to a conclusion that preexisting zones of weakness may have controlled the pattern of crustal thinning during the extension.

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)0.000
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosphereSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207