MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154746660 · doi:10.1029/2004gl020939

Lithospheric anisotropy structure inferred from collocated teleseismic and magnetotelluric observations: Great Slave Lake shear zone, northern Canada

2004· article· en· W2154746660 on OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Eaton, Alan G. Jones, Ian J. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of ManitobaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyLithosphereShear wave splittingAnisotropySeismologyMagnetotelluricsGeophysicsShear (geology)Seismic anisotropyMantle (geology)Shear zoneTectonicsPetrologyElectrical resistivity and conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate interpretation of SKS shear‐wave splitting observations requires inherently indeterminate depth information. Magnetotelluric electrical anisotropies are depth‐constrained, and thereby offer possible resolution of the SKS conundrum. MT and teleseismic instruments, deployed across the Great Slave Lake shear zone, northern Canada, investigated lithospheric anisotropy and tested a hypothesis that seismic and electrical anisotropy obliquity can infer mantle strain shear‐sense. Lithospheric mantle MT strike (N60°E) differs significantly from crustal MT strike (N30°E). SKS splitting vectors outside the shear zone exhibit single‐layer anisotropy with fast axis parallel to upper‐mantle MT strike and oblique to present‐day plate motion (N135°W). Back‐azimuth sensitivity at sites within the ∼30 km wide shear‐zone imply more complex layering, with two‐layer inversion yielding an upper layer of ∼N20°E and a lower layer of ∼N66°E. The MT data help to constrain the depth location of SKS anisotropy and, taken together, support a model of fossil lithospheric anisotropy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207