MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107660525 · doi:10.1144/sp327.7

The Calabrian Orocline: buckling of a previously more linear orogen

2009· article· en· W2107660525 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen T. Johnston, Stefano Mazzoli

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBucklingGeologySeismologyStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent structural studies of the Apennines and the Calabrian orocline and a compilation of structural, stratigraphic, GPS and palaeomagnetic data from the central and western Mediterranean region show that beginning in the Late Miocene a N–S trending ribbon continent that had been previously deformed, and which we now recognize as the Apennine–Sicilian thrust belt, buckled eastward in response to northward movement of Africa relative to stable Europe. A simple geometric model is consistent with available data and shows how eastward buckling of an originally north–south continental beam explains: (1) opening of the Tyrrhenian Sea basin from 7–2 Ma, at which point sea-floor spreading ceases and the basin begins to shrink by southward subduction beneath Sicily; (2) the coeval development of an east-verging fold-and-thrust belt along the length of the Apennine–Sicilian belt in response to overthrusting of the autochthon to the east, followed by extension beginning at 1 Ma as the Apennine portion of the beam begins to retreat to the SW; and (3) subduction of continental and oceanic lithosphere east of the buckling beam into a trench that migrates eastward through time due to ‘push back’ by the buckling upper plate.

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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207