MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400590896 · doi:10.1130/g37862.1

Pre-Mississippian tectonic affinity across the Canada Basin–Arctic margins of Alaska and Canada

2016· article· en· W2400590896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David W. Houseknecht, Christopher Connors

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinArcticTectonicsOceanographyThe arcticPhysical geographyEarth sciencePaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New and reprocessed seismic reflection data on the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic margins of the Canada Basin, together with geologic constraints from exploration wells and outcrops, reveal structural and stratigraphic relationships in pre-Mississippian rocks that constrain models of Canada Basin opening. Lithostratigraphic age and acoustic character indicate that the Devonian and older passive-margin to foreland-basin succession in the Canadian M’Clure Strait is also found on the central Alaska margin. This succession also displays similar structural geometry and relief as well as deformational age on both margins. Moreover, Middle Devonian to Early Mississippian tectonic vergence—north directed on the central Alaska margin and east directed in the Canadian M’Clure Strait—indicates a common direction of tectonic transport if the two margins were conjugate. All of these observations demonstrate that pre-Mississippian rocks of the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic margins share a common tectonic history of uplift and exhumation and that the two margins were conjugates prior to opening of the Canada Basin.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207