MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527883877 · doi:10.1144/jgs2016-082

Exploring the geology of the central Arctic Ocean; understanding the basin features in place and time

2016· article· en· W2527883877 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Coakley, Kelley Brumley, Nina Lebedeva‐Ivanova, D. Mosher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinArcticPaleontologyOceanographyMarine geologyThe arcticEarth science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of the deep Arctic Ocean is largely unwritten. The means to understand this history may now be at hand. Bathymetry and potential field data have accumulated to the point it is possible to ask specific questions about the origins and evolution of the individual ridges and basins. The two primary basins have contrasting histories and deficits of understanding. The Eurasia Basin, formed during the Cenozoic, is well understood as far as the kinematics are concerned. The dynamics of ultraslow spreading, as observed on the Gakkel Ridge, are not well understood. It is widely thought that the Amerasia Basin formed during the Mesozoic. Most previous work has begun with a large-scale model of the basin tectonics and fit the ridges and basins it into this pattern. Enough is now known to establish the internal structure and relations from specific observations rather than a priori assumptions. This paper reviews knowledge about the central Arctic Ocean and proposes what should be done to develop a historical understanding of basin history. Ground truth from Arctic Ocean sediments is necessary. It will not be possible to establish the history of events, in geological time, until the sediments have been sampled and dated.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.144 · 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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207