MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2736181970 · doi:10.7282/t3xw4n8d

The geophysical crust-to-mantle transition from receiver function analysis

2017· article· en· W2736181970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. Dunham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyCrustReceiver functionMantle (geology)GeophysicsTransition zoneFront (military)SeismologyOceanographyLithosphereTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Receiver function analysis is useful for studying relative variations of seismic discontinuities at the lithospheric scale. This study uses receiver functions computed from a densely spaced 2D grid of six receivers that collected passive seismic data over a decade in the lower St. Lawrence River, Quebec, Canada. The lower crustal structure and lithospheric mantle are not well constrained in this study area, which is centered on the tectonic boundary between the Grenville and Appalachian provinces. Thus, the goals of this study are: 1) to establish the consistency and resolution limits of receiver functions from a large data set and dense permanent array of receivers; and 2) to use this grid to identify the geophysical Moho and describe the lithospheric mantle-to-crust transition across the Appalachian front (AF), the western boundary of Appalachian deformation. The relative seismic velocity changes under the AF resolved by Receiver Function Analysis provide evidence of local variability in the Moho’s depth and sharpness. Frequency-based analysis of the receiver functions in the northwest region of the study area produces variable Moho depth estimates from 50 to 35 km, and exhibits a gradational transition from the crust to the mantle. In the southeast region, the Moho has more consistent depth and is sharper. The likely cause of this variability is either deep-reaching shear zones that offset the Moho, or a high-velocity layer in the lower crust that is only apparent in areas where it produces significant impedance contrasts between layers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→