High Arctic geopotential stress field and implications for geodynamic evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We use new models of crustal structure and the depth of the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary to calculate the geopotential energy and its corresponding geopotential stress field for the High Arctic. Palaeostress indicators such as dykes and rifts of known age are used to compare the present day and palaeostress fields. When both stress fields coincide, a minimum age for the configuration of the lithospheric stress field may be defined. We identify three regions in which this is observed. In north Greenland and the eastern Amerasia Basin, the stress field is probably the same as that present during the Late Cretaceous. In western Siberia, the stress field is similar to that in the Triassic. The stress directions on the eastern Russian Arctic Shelf and the Amerasia Basin are similar to that in the Cretaceous. The persistent misfit of the present stress field and Early Cretaceous dyke swarms associated with the High Arctic Large Igneous Province indicates a short-lived transient change in the stress field at the time of dyke emplacement. Most Early Cretaceous rifts in the Amerasia Basin coincide with the stress field, suggesting that dyking and rifting were unrelated. We present new evidence for dykes and a graben structure of Early Cretaceous age on Bennett Island.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".