MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2247771929

Geometry and Tectonics of the Laramide Front Range, Colorado

2006· article· en· W2247771929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William D. Nesse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMonoclineThrust faultCanyonTectonicsSeismologyFront (military)Basin and range topographyPaleontologyBasin and Range ProvinceFold and thrust beltEchelon formationFault (geology)Fault scarpCrustMountain formationFold (higher-order function)GeomorphologyForeland basinOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Detailed E-W structural cross sections based on published geologic maps, oil well, and related data extending across the Colorado Front Range between 38° 30′ and 41° 00′ N latitude at 7.5′ intervals show the following: • North of Boulder (~40° N) the east flank of the Front Range is bounded by an east-dipping monocline cut at intervals by relatively small E- to NE-dipping, high-angle reverse faults and fault-propagation folds. From Boulder south, the monocline is locally modified by the east-directed Boulder and Golden thrusts, and the Jarre Canyon, Perry Park, Rampart Range, and Cheyenne Mountain faults whose net slips are less than ~3 km. These faults are not continuous along the mountain front and are located where the dip of the sediments exceeds ~60°E. • The west flank is bounded by west-directed thrusts that include, from north to south, thrust of Canadian River, Cameron Pass thrust, Never Summer thrust, Williams Range thrust, and Elkhorn thrust. They are associated with large-scale, commonly overturned folds that apparently developed prior to propagation of discrete thrust faults. The net slip on the thrusts is ~10–15 km, based on exposures in the Never Summer Mountains and adjacent to the Montezuma Stock in the Roberts Tunnel near Dillon. Additional west-directed thrusts are found in the North, Middle, and South Park basins. These observations indicate that the Laramide Front Range was produced by dominantly west-directed thrusting associated with shortening of the crust beneath the range. Tectonic uplift of the range relative to the Denver Basin exceeds 6 km. West-dipping thrusts along the east flank are interpreted as back-thrusts. Tectonic models that involve vertical uplift on faults whose dip increases with depth on both flanks of the range are not compatible with the geologic data, nor are models that treat the range as a large flower structure on a wrench fault system. If the thrusts are assumed to dip ~35°E beneath the range, >6 km of tectonic uplift would require >10.5 km of tectonic transport, similar to the actual slips on the Never Summer and William Range thrusts. Given an average width of ~60–65 km, the depth at which the thrusts must flatten to produce the homocline on the east flank of the range is ~42–45 km, which is the approximate depth of the Moho. These observations argue that the Laramide Front Range uplift was produced by west-directed crustal-scale thrusts with 10–15 km of net movement. It is suggested that localization of the Front Range and related Laramide uplifts in the foreland basin was a result of foundering of the flat-subducted Farallon Plate well east of the Sevier fold/thrust belt and related tectonic activity along the active margin of the continent.

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)0.000
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 score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→