MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160622478 · doi:10.1130/focus042009.1

Initiation of the Western Interior foreland basin

2009· article· en· W2160622478 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew D. Miall

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeland basinGeologyCitationGeologistIconPaleontologyLibrary scienceStructural basinArchaeologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Article| April 01, 2009 Initiation of the Western Interior foreland basin Andrew D. Miall Andrew D. Miall * 1Department of Geology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada *E-mail: miall@geology.utoronto.ca. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Geology (2009) 37 (4): 383–384. https://doi.org/10.1130/focus042009.1 Article history first online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Andrew D. Miall; Initiation of the Western Interior foreland basin. Geology 2009;; 37 (4): 383–384. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/focus042009.1 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGeology Search Advanced Search In this issue of Geology, Fuentes et al. (2009, p. 379) present a new subsidence plot and age data from detrital zircons that help to constrain the date of initiation of the foreland basin in Montana (United States). They offer these data as evidence for the resolution of a controversy regarding the initiation of foreland basin sedimentation in the Western Interior. However, their discussion raises the question of what geological data constitute the definitive evidence of the foreland basin style of sedimentation, and therefore the criteria that should be used to define its commencement. A useful definition of... You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207