MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Precambrian–Palaeozoic geology of Smith Sound, Canada and Greenland: key constraint to palaeogeographic reconstructions of northern Laurentia and the North Atlantic region

2008· article· en· W2093708495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P.R Dawes

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaurentiaGeologyPaleontologyPaleozoicSound (geography)PrecambrianProterozoicPlate tectonicsOceanographyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nares Strait separating Greenland and northernmost Canada is floored by continental crust. Most palaeogeographic reconstructions of Laurentia and the North Atlantic region model the seaway as the site of massive sinistral strike–slip and/or compression/transpression, subduction and collision, the supposed manifestations of the hypothetical Wegener Fault. However, these reconstructions fail to take into account the bedrock geology that represents within‐plate evolution. Both sides of Smith Sound, the southernmost part of Nares Strait, expose the same early Proterozoic to early Palaeozoic assemblages that are unaffected by seaway‐related tectonism or thermal activity. Smith Sound is an intact crustal block or `linchpin' demonstrating that there was no independent Greenland plate. North‐west Greenland was not a leading plate margin neither was Nares Strait the site of the plate boundary between Greenland and North America. The Wegener Fault does not exist. The Smith Sound linchpin constitutes a key constraint that must be respected in any palaeogeographic reconstruction of the region.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations37
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207