Chapter 2 Classification of basins, with special reference to Proterozoic examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Basin classification rests on a plate tectonic foundation, highlighting lithospheric substrate, proximity to plate margin and relative motion of the nearest plate boundary. Major mechanisms for regional subsidence and uplift are subdivided into isostatic, flexural and dynamic groups. Basin-forming mechanisms and basin types do not exhibit simple cause-and-effect relationships, but rather reflect a matrix-type relationship. Different basin types have different spans of existence, with generally shorter life spans related to more tectonically active settings. Many ‘polyhistory’ basins, composed of two or more megasequences, reflect a long evolution dominated by different basin-forming and basin-modifying mechanisms. The supercontinent cycle is marked by distinct sets of basin types, developed during successive phases of the cycle. Major classification schemes are reviewed briefly, before surveying the range of basin types represented in the Proterozoic of several key cratonic areas. Basins examined encompass almost the entire Neoarchaean–Neoproterozoic period. All of these basins have a relatively long history of preservation, which can be tied to the essentially continental character of their basement rocks and concomitant enhanced ‘survivability’. Their preservation thus underlines the longevity and inherent stability of the continental lithosphere. The distinction between basin occurrence over geological time and preferential preservation is important when viewing the geological record.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".