MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584355797 · doi:10.1111/maps.12822

On critical observations that constrain models of terrestrial hypervelocity impact craters

2017· article· en· W2584355797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. R. Dence

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterGeologyHypervelocityAttenuationUltimate tensile strengthGeometryMineralogyMaterials scienceAstrobiologyPhysicsOpticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Impact structures in the crystalline rocks of the Canadian Shield range over two orders of magnitude in size and display morphologies recognized elsewhere in the solar system. This contribution draws upon new examinations of drill core from Canadian craters to reaffirm some relationships, modify others, and refine the transitions from simple to complex with central peak to peak‐ring structures. These include recognizing the hyperbolic form of transient craters, sharpening the allochthon–parautochthon distinction, and proposing new formulae for key relationships. It emphasizes the role of dynamic tensile strength and the attenuation of tensile rarefaction waves in determining the size of both transient and final crater dimensions. On Earth, depth ( d ) to diameter ( D ) ratios are not invariant at about 1:10 but change smoothly with size from 1:3 at Brent through 1:5 to 1:10 in the largest; that is, d = 0.4 D 0.75 . In craters in crystalline rocks, the central peak grows at about uplift = 0.175 D until, at D about 28 km, the uplift rises above the original surface then collapses to form a peak‐ring structure. These relationships demonstrate the dominant role of gravity in attenuating tensile rarefaction waves and controlling transient crater depth and overall size relative to the volume shocked.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207