MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273676872 · doi:10.14288/1.0053597

Mechanical strength of Anhydrite and its Role in the Seismicity of the Duke River Fault, Yukon Territory

2010· article· en· W2273676872 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian Sampaleanu

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnhydriteGeologyInduced seismicityFault (geology)SeismologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anhydrite rich fault zones are known to act as zones of weakness and the source of earthquakes in seismically active areas. One of the best known examples is the Apennine Mountains in Italy, which contain neo-tectonic extensional faults hosted in carbonate and evaporite sequences. For this study, anhydrite from the Duke River fault in the Yukon was sampled and triaxial stress tests were conducted to determine the mechanical strength of the anhydrite. Both pure shear experiments and friction experiments were performed. These tests show that anhydrite will begin to undergo brittle-ductile deformation at confining pressures as low as 25 MPa. At atmospheric conditions, anhydrite behaves elastically until brittle failure results in the formation of a shear fracture with associated stress drop. At confining pressures greater than 75 MPa, anhydrite will deform by cataclastic flow, and no longer produce a stress drop. The data indicate that the anhydrite-rich locations in the Duke River fault likely could not be responsible for a stress drop and therefore it is unlikely that the anhydrite-rich portions of the Duke River Fault are the sources of the seismicity. It is proposed that high fluid pressure would be required to promote brittle failure that could cause the seismicity.

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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207