MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319662047 · doi:10.1144/m35.33

Chapter 33 Stratigraphic and tectonic framework of the US Chukchi Shelf: exploration insights from a new regional deep-seismic reflection survey

2011· article· en· W2319662047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naresh Kumar, James W. Granath, P. A. Emmet, James Helwig, M. G. Dinkelman

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Memoirs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyReflection (computer programming)TectonicsSeismic explorationPaleontologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The US Chukchi Shelf is a proven petroleum province similar to the prolific hydrocarbon-bearing region in the adjacent North Slope of Alaska. This shelf is part of the Arctic Alaska plate that was presumably connected to the Canadian Arctic Islands until the opening of the Canada Basin. A new data set (3130 km) of deep 2D seismic reflection profiles, acquired in 2006 and depth processed to 40 km, provides excellent images of the drillable ( c . 8 km depth) stratigraphy as well as of deeper structures. The data also permit regional mapping of the tops of crystalline basement and the Moho discontinuity. The area has a tectonic history of multiple phases of rifting: a pre-Late Devonian phase that culminated in inversion and thrusting; a Late Devonian–Mississippian phase that accommodated Ellesmerian sedimentary deposits as a sag sequence; and a Jurassic to Early Cretaceous phase that is contemporaneous with the opening of the Canada Basin. Hanna Trough is recognized as a Palaeozoic basin with a multistage history while the North Chukchi Basin formed in early Cretaceous as an extensional basin. Only five wells have been drilled in the area; hence numerous opportunities for further exploration exist in the Chukchi Shelf.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.159 · 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.

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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London MemoirsSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207