MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508539157 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201602166

High Resolution Marine Seismic Surveying in the Sudbury Basin, Ontario, Canada

2016· article· en· W2508539157 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Zajch, B. Milkereit, N. Eyles

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyDeglaciationSlumpingTectonicsStructural basinSedimentPaleontologyTectonic upliftEcological successionFaciesGlacial periodGeomorphologyEarth science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Sudbury basin in Ontario, Canada has been historically studied due to its economic mineral deposits and unique geology. High resolution marine seismic surveying was conducted in two lakes to explore sediments for imbedded neo-tectonic indicators providing evidence of neo-tectonic activity prior to anthropogenic influence. Seismic profiles revealed four distinct acoustic facies correlating to sediment facies described and cored in the encompassing Huron basin. Utilizing these interpretations a rudimentary chronology was established for the sediment stratigraphy based on the timing of significant regional events such as deglaciation and the warm/arid Hypsithermal climatic event. Faulting was confined to older (> 8000 ybp) sediments while sediment slumping was recorded throughout the succession, revealing persistent neo-tectonic activity since deglaciation. This study demonstrates the use of shallow marine seismic surveying for reconstructing late and post glacial environments, and how this information can be applied for investigating on-going natural hazards such as neo-tectonic activity.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207