The importance of being cratered: The new role of meteorite impact as a normal geological process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—This paper is a personal (and, in many ways, incomplete) view of the past development of impact geology and of the newly recognized importance of impact events in terrestrial geological history. It also identifies some exciting scientific challenges for future investigators: to determine the full range of impact effects preserved on the Earth, to apply the knowledge obtained from impact phenomena to more general geological problems, and to continue the merger of the once exotic field of impact geology with mainstream geosciences. Since the recognition of an impact event at the Cretaceous‐Tertiary (K‐T) boundary, much current activity in impact geology has been promoted by traditionally trained geoscientists who have unexpectedly encountered impact effects in the course of their work. Their studies have involved: 1) the recognition of additional major impact effects in the geological record (the Chesapeake Bay crater, the Alamo breccia, and multiple layers of impact spherules in Precambrian rocks); and 2) the use of impact structures as laboratories to study general geological processes (e.g., igneous petrogenesis at Sudbury, Canada and Archean crustal evolution at Vredefort, South Africa). Other research areas, in which impact studies could contribute to major geoscience problems in the future, include: 1) comparative studies between low‐level (≤7 GPa) shock deformation of quartz, and the production of quartz cleavage, in both impact and tectonic environments; and 2) the nature, origin, and significance of bulk organic carbon (“kerogen”) and other carbon species in some impact structures (Gardnos, Norway, and Sudbury, Canada).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".