Comparison of tectonic styles in the Mexican and Canadian Rocky Mountain Fold-Thrust Belt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the fact that most fold–thrust belts around the world share many features, successfully explained by the critical wedge model, the details of their geometric evolution and tectonic style development are poorly understood. In the classic section of the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains the dominant tectonic style consists of imbricate thrust sheets with relatively little internal deformation of the individual slices. In the Mexican fold–thrust Belt (Central Mexico), the age of deformation, the overall structural pattern and the total amount of shortening are similar, but the individual thrust sheets exhibit much more internal deformation as manifest by metre-scale buckle folds. One of the differences between these localities is the lateral variation of facies resulting in massive platform limestone separated by thinly-bedded basinal limestone in the Central Mexico section. Strain is concentrated toward the margins between platforms and basins. In Canada, thick platform carbonates form continuous resistant units across the Front Range. Possible reasons for the differences in tectonic style between the two sections include the dominant lithology, distribution of lithologies, taper angle of the tectonic wedges, amount of friction along the basal detachment and the degree of anisotropy of the basin facies rocks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".