Geotechnical engineering significance of Great Plains polygonal fault system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An extensive polygonal fault system (PFS) within fine-grained Upper Cretaceous sediments beneath the Great Plains of North America has implications for geotechnical engineering. Geological well control, outcrop, and three-dimensional seismic data from southeast Saskatchewan exemplify the fault characteristics typically observed within the PFS. The deepest faults are sparse, offset a seismic reflection identified from the Niobrara Formation Govenlock member, and have vertical offsets <2 m. The deformation increases in fault density and vertical offset at shallower depths, reaching 6 faults/km2 with up to 30 m of vertical offset. Upper Cretaceous strata throughout the Great Plains area are at or near outcrop, and the extensive PFS faulting and weathering have weakened the rock. This faulting and weakness have been observed and attributed to other factors such as glacial erosion, overconsolidation, swelling bentonite beds, or landslides from toe erosion at topographic slopes. The PFS faulting should be recognized as an extensive process to be considered when undertaking geotechnical analysis on the Great Plains where underlying Upper Cretaceous rocks exist. Engineering implications include road cuts, dam impoundments, building foundations, and natural slumping.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".