Evolution géodynamique et paléogéographique mésozoïque du nord de l'Alaska : du bassin amérasien à l'orogenèse brookienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian basin is among the few basins worldwide for which the nature and the geometry of the substratum, and therefore the opening mode, are still unknown. Paleogeographic models based on the few data available are subject to controversy, with different mechanisms and inception ages. According to current paleogeographic models, the margins of Canadian basin either considered as extensional or transform margins. Detailed study of their structures and chronologies is a preliminary exercise to discriminate between permissible models. The most sollicited opening model assumes a change of polarity of the overall subduction south to the canadian basin during the multiphase Brookian orogeny. The Brooks orogen is located north of the alaskan peninsula and south of the canadian basin. It constitutes one of the main assembly stage of terranes in the Northern Cordillera : docking of the Arctic-Alaska-Chukotka terrane with the peri-Pacific arcs system. Its collisional stage is deemed synchronous of the opening of the Canada Basin, which is likely to provide clues about the coupling between tectonics of the north basin and intra-Alaska Cordillera deformation. This orogen has both recorded and influenced the geodynamic history of the Canadian basin. The relative chronology of the development of the two structures is essential and any reconstruction of regional geodynamics must reconcile them in terms of kinematics and boundary conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".