MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225369095 · doi:10.4138/atlgeol.2015.013

Basement-cover relations in the southeastern Cape Breton Highlands, Nova Scotia, Canada

2015· article· en· W2225369095 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Rob Raeside, Amy Tizzard

Bibliographic record

VenueAtlantic Geology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
FundersAcadia University
KeywordsGeologyPetrographyOutcropThrust faultBasementMetamorphic rockCapeGeomorphologyCarboniferousFault (geology)GeochemistryPaleontologyArchaeologyStructural basinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the southeastern Cape Breton Highlands Neoproterozoic plutonic and metamorphic rocks outcrop in upland areas whereas Carboniferous sedimentary rocks are found in the river valleys and coastal lowlands. Detailed analysis of the contacts between these two groups of rocks including mapping, geometric constructions of the contact relations, structural geological investigations, petrographic analysis and geophysical map interpretations show that the basement rocks were emplaced by a thrust fault that extends at least from the Baddeck River valley to North River, and possibly includes klippen south and east of the highlands. The thrust fault transported a slab of rock with minimum thickness of 200 m a distance of at least 8 km over Horton and Windsor group rocks. East-directed translation of the thrust block likely occurred during the Alleghanian orogeny, and appears to mirror movement previously identified in the northern and western Cape Breton Highlands, implying that much of the upland geology is allochthonous, but likely rooted in the central highlands as positive flower structure.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtlantic GeologySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207