Near-surface geology and sediment-failure geohazards of the central Scotian Slope
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The central Scotian Slope demonstrates a complex seafloor morphology superimposed on a regional gradient of 2–4° across the margin. The west-central Scotian Slope is characterized by a relatively smooth seafloor, but with numerous 10–80-m (33–260-ft)-high escarpments representing slide failure scars. In the east, the seafloor is highly dissected by canyons. Throughout the region are scars and deposits of sediment mass failures, including retrogressive headwalls, rotational slumps, slides, creep, debris-flow deposits, and turbidites. The complexity of failure styles and triggering mechanisms identified underscores the need for comprehensive site assessments for situating seabed facilities. Critical factors that need to be taken into account include local terrain analysis and shallow subbottom stratigraphy. Slope-stability analysis has shown the surface sediment to be statically stable, except on steep escarpments and canyon walls. There is evidence, however, of sediment failures that approximately correlate to glacial advances (25–12, ∼75, and ∼130 ka), providing some clue as to potential triggering mechanisms. Sparse, passive-margin, tectonic earthquakes, however, are the likely cause for large-scale, regionally correlated failures and failure escarpments.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it