MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Crustal structure of the Newfoundland rifted continental margin from constrained 3-D gravity inversion

2007· article· en· W2100593997 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Kim Welford, Jeremy Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRiftInversion (geology)Continental marginSeismologyGravity anomalyBouguer anomalyTectonicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rifting history of the Atlantic continental margin of Newfoundland is very complex and so far has been investigated at the crustal scale primarily with the use of 2-D seismic surveys. While informative, the results generated from these surveys cannot easily be interpreted in a regional sense due to their sparse sampling of the margin. A 3-D gravity inversion of the free air data over the Newfoundland margin allows us to generate a 3-D density anomaly model that can be compared with the seismic results and used to gain insight into regions lacking seismic coverage. Results of the gravity inversion show good correspondence with Moho depths from seismic results. A shallowing of the Moho to 12 km depth is resolved on the shelf at the northern edge of the Grand Banks, in a region poorly sampled by other methods. Comparisons between sediment thickness and crustal thickness show deviations from local isostatic compensation in locations which correlate with faults and rifting trends. Such insights must act as constraints for future palaeoreconstructions of North Atlantic rifting.

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 score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations42
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207