Variations in salt expulsion style within the Sable Canopy Complex, central Scotian margin<sup>1</sup>This article is one of a series of papers published in this CJES Special Issue on the theme of<i>Mesozoic–Cenozoic geology of the Scotian Basin</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two allochthonous salt canopies within the central Scotian margin, one on the shelf and another in deeper waters on the Scotian slope. The Sable Shelf Canopy trends southwest–northeast and covers an area approximately 650 km 2 . Salt thickness within this canopy is generally <1000 m. Reloading of the salt has welded out the margins of the canopy, significantly reducing its extent. Salt tectonics related to this canopy produced many of the exploration targets drilled on the shelf. The Sable Slope Canopy is 50 km basinward on the Scotian slope. This canopy is significantly larger, covering 12 700 km 2 , and the allochthonous salt is as thick as 3500 m. Although the two canopies are separated by a significant distance, a common detachment surface connects them in multiple locations. Extensional systems detach in the Sable Shelf Canopy, displace strata downdip, and expel salt into the Sable Slope Canopy. The outer shelf and slope region separating these two canopies is dominated by detachment systems. One term, the Sable Canopy Complex, was developed to describe both salt canopies and the zone of detachment that separates them. Interpretation of two-dimensional and three-dimensional seismic data throughout the Sable Canopy Complex has resulted in a detailed allochthonous salt map and all related components including welded systems, salt stocks, faults, sutures, and minibasins. Four distinct expulsion styles are observed to contribute volumes of salt to the canopies: salt-based detachments, counterregional systems, hybrids, and salt stocks. Potential explanations for the variations in expulsion style range from varying volumes of sediment input to paleogeographic positions on the margin to salt sheet length.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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 teacher head, 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".