Microstructural evidence of low‐strain, time‐transgressive subglacial deformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microstructural analyses were used to investigate the formation of a macroscale‐massive till at Knud Strand in Denmark. More than 100 thin sections were examined and microstructures mapped and counted for quantitative comparison and interpretation. Microstructures indicative of both brittle (grain lineations, edge‐to‐edge crushed grains) and ductile (turbate structures) deformation are evenly distributed in vertical profiles through the till, suggesting that strain contributed to its formation. Discrete shears (grain lineations and plasmic fabric) probably accommodated most deformation, whereas rotational deformation was less prominent. The microshear geometry fits the predicted Coulomb–Mohr failure criterion, indicating that till behaves as a plastic material. Strain estimate of ca. 101 from micromorphological proxies is two–three orders of magnitude lower than expected if the till was subjected to pervasive deformation. A hybrid of lodgement and time‐transgressive deformation is envisaged as the till‐forming processes. Our data suggest that even abundant evidence of microscale deformation at continuing high levels of strain may only record the latest process of deposition and deformation and therefore not fully reflect the complexity of till genesis. Copyright © 2007 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".