MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136989388 · doi:10.3906/yer-0803-4

The Relationship Between the Tectonic Setting of the Lake İznik Basin and the Middle Strand of the North Anatolian Fault

2009· article· en· W2136989388 on OpenAlexaff
Kurultay Öztürk, Cenk Yaltırak, Bedri Alpar

Bibliographic record

VenueTURKISH JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyNorth Anatolian FaultSeismologyStructural basinTectonicsFault (geology)HoloceneShear (geology)Basin and range topographyQuaternaryActive faultGeomorphologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The İznik Basin is an active depression created by a series of faults developed in relation to the Middle Strand of the North Anatolian Fault (NAFMS). The most important of these faults is the oblique Sölöz fault, which runs parallel to the NAFMS. It is interpreted as a releasing bend, and plays a crucial role in the evolution of the 75-m-deep ellipsoid-shaped depression in the southern part of the lake. The faults that limit the coastal alluvial plain on land, some of which developed during the early evolution of the NAFMS, are equally important in the development of the İznik Basin, and correspond to P-shear or secondary synthetic shear faults. These faults are cut by the main fault zone and are right-laterally displaced by approximately 7-8 km. Considering an annual slip rate of 2 mm on the fault, such a displacement is only possible in a time span of 3.5 to 4 million years. An earthquake periodicity of ~2000-2500 years is estimated on the basis of recent GPS data, and a limited number of historical earthquakes. Linear terraces observed on the northern and western parts of the Lake İznik, which have been affected by tectonic activity, show occasional rises of the lake level. The seismic data show that the lake level was approximately 40 m below its present level during the last glacial period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTURKISH JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCESSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207