MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079423711 · doi:10.1029/eo083i051p00601-02

Gas hydrate occurrence in the Northern Gulf of Mexico studied with giant piston cores

2002· article· en· W2079423711 on OpenAlex
Thomas D. Lorenson, William J. Winters, Patrick E. Hart, C. K. Paull

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsGeologyGeohazardClathrate hydrateSeabedContinental shelfProspectingOceanographyContinental marginPetroleumFossil fuelGeochemistryGeomorphologyPaleontologyTectonicsHydrateLandslide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas hydrate is widely regarded as a potential energy resource and as a geohazard associated with both continental slope sea floor instability and petroleum exploration [e.g., Kvenvolden , 1999] . The northern Gulf of Mexico contains some of the best‐documented occurrences of gas hydrates in the world, because they have been found in near sea floor sediments at more than 50 locations associated with active sea floor hydrocarbon seeps [ Sassen et al , 2001]. Despite years of geophysical prospecting for hydrocarbons, the spatial and vertical distribution of deep gas hydrate in the Gulf of Mexico is not well known. This uncertainty hinders both the determination of the economic potential of gas hydrate resources in the region [ Milkov and Sassen , 2001] and their potential as a geohazard.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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