MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559023334 · doi:10.1144/m46.120

Pockmarks on the Mendeleev Rise, central Arctic Ocean

2016· article· en· W2559023334 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Jakobsson, Matt O’Regan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Memoirs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyArcticThe arcticOceanographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circular to semi-circular crater-like depressions in the seafloor are commonly referred to as pockmarks. Pockmarks were discovered in the 1960s on echo-sounding profiles from the Scotian Shelf, eastern Canada (King & MacLean 1970). While there is no consensus regarding their formation process, pockmarks are in general linked to the removal of soft surface sediments during fluid escape at the seafloor (Judd & Hovland 2009). In the Arctic Ocean, pockmarks are found in sizes ranging from 100 m in diameter, both on the continental shelf and in deeper-water settings. Within a limited area of the Mendeleev Rise crest at about 78°20′ N, pockmarks dominate the seafloor morphology in water depths around 800 m. The Mendeleev Rise comprises one of the major undersea features in the Arctic Ocean; it extends approximately 900 km along the 180° meridian from the continental slope west of Chukchi Borderland to about 84° N (Fig. 1a). Portions of the rise shallower than approximately 1000 m were subjected to ice grounding, except in the vicinity of 78° 20′ N where the 800 m deep crest contains no direct evidence of ice scouring (Jakobsson et al. 2014). Multibeam swath bathymetry collected with USCGC Healy in …

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)0.000
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London MemoirsSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207