MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2140784207 · doi:10.7202/032967ar

Contemporary Subsidence and Ground Movement, Southwestern Ontario: Possible Bedrock Controls

2007· article· en· W2140784207 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hendrik Veldhuyzen

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyBedrockSlumpingAlluviumSubsidenceGeomorphologyShoreSeismologyFault scarpTectonicsOceanographyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground movement, principally subsidence with limited strike-slip displacement, occurs discontinuously along an 8 km-long, north-south zone which is subparallel to the St. Clair River and extends from Mooretown to Corunna, Ontario. The southern-most area of subsidence lies beneath the river, 25 m from the Canadian shore. The longest continuous interval of subsidence is ^ 75 m east of the river and the northern limit is located about 250 to 300 m east of the river. Subsidence has been both abrupt and gradual, occurring overnight and over a two-year period. In the south and central areas the west side (the side closer to the river) has dropped 20 to 40 cm. However, in the north, the east side has subsided. The foundation of one home has been displaced 1 and 5 cm, in a right-lateral sense, along two discrete surfaces. The ground movements do not resemble surface slumping. Bedrock movement resulting from either dissolution of limestone or salt, displacements along Grenville basement structures, or a combination of the two may explain the phenomenon. The deformation observed, both in the production of scarps and damage to civil structures, may have neotectonic implications.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et Quaternaire→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→