MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301748736 · doi:10.1002/2015gl066446

Terrane‐controlled crustal shear wave splitting in Taiwan

2015· article· en· W2301748736 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Okaya, Nikolas I. Christensen, Zachary E. Ross, Francis T. Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTerraneGeologyShear wave splittingLithosphereMetamorphic rockSeismologyShear (geology)TectonicsShear zonePlate tectonicsCrustContinental collisionPetrologyGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Taiwan is the result of arc‐continent collision associated with the convergence of the Philippine Sea plate with the eastern Eurasian plate continental margin. The locus of deformation is found in eastern Taiwan in the form of mountain building (Central Range) with underlying thickened lithosphere. Rapid tectonic exhumation in the Central Range has uncovered low‐to‐high‐grade metamorphic rocks marked by steep cleavage. We carried out a crustal seismic anisotropy study across Taiwan, producing a database of over 27,000 local earthquake shear wave splitting measurements. Additionally, we carried out rock physics measurements of metamorphic outcrop samples to quantify shear wave rock anisotropy. We produced a map of station‐averaged splitting measurements across Taiwan. Patterns of fast shear wave directions correlate with tectonic terranes produced by plate convergence. Deformation‐related mineral‐preferred orientation in the metamorphic rocks produces a significant amount of the crustal anisotropy in the Taiwan collision zone.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207