Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work addresses the post‐glacial development of the Niagara Escarpment, specifically the east‐facing scarp slopes between Hamilton and Collingwood. The escarpment is one of a series of scarps that shape the Great Lakes Basin. One interpretation suggests that the escarpment has evolved through homoclinal recession to the west. It is therefore viewed as an erosional feature brought about due to fluvial action on the weaker shale formations that underlie the cap rock. However, the deposition of large amounts of drift during the Pleistocene glaciation has resulted in the disruption of the preglacial drainage pattern within the Great Lakes Basin. Therefore, the current drainage is typically orthogonal to the scarp face with an absence of fluvial action along the base. Consequently, the cuesta is experiencing an extremely slow rate of retreat. Conventional thinking on the evolution of the present morphology suggests that it developed rapidly following deglaciation due to periglacial processes. The concept of the escarpment as a relict feature during the Holocene therefore pervades the modern literature. However, the cambering of the cap rock towards the scarp face and the apparent motion of individual joint‐bounded blocks indicates that in the absence of exogenetic processes, a slow development due to endogenetic processes has dominated the modern development of the escarpment. It has been proposed that the present morphology of the cliffed sections may be due to deformation within the shale layers. In order to test this hypothesis, the rheology of the rocks that form the escarpment was tested and compared to the gravitational stresses that would be expected within the rock mass. The results indicate that the compressive strength of the shale layers of the Cabot Head Formation is lower than the expected effective stresses. It is therefore concluded that in the absence of high confining stresses, as would be expected near the cliff face, slow plastic deformation within this formation is occurring. The morphological expression of this deformation is seen in the cambering of the escarpment, the dilation of pre‐existing joints, and the rotation of joint‐bounded blocks. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".