The Roles of Far Field Stress and Mantle Downwelling In Intraplate Deformation: The Michigan Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Michigan basin has long been established as the type example of an intracratonic basin due to its near circular geometry and gently inward-dipping Paleozoic formations. The backstripping of major formations within the basin reveals that its geometry varied over the duration of the Paleozoic, displaying two distinct subsidence signals consisting of quasi-circular basin-centered subsidence interspaced with periods of irregular basin geometry. The quasi-circular basin-centred subsidence is thought to represent the surface expression of a driving mechanism located beneath the Michigan basin, which persisted for the duration of the Paleozoic. An irregular subsidence geometry periodically interrupts the quasi - circular basin-centred pattern and is contemporaneous with the Ordovician Taconic and Devonian Acadian orogenies. Through the use of scaled analogue experiments, the effects of convective mantle downwelling and long wavelength folding are explored as potential driving mechanisms to explain the subsidence patterns of the Michigan basin. Convective mantle downwelling is hypothesized as the process responsible for the quasi-circular basin-centered subsidence patterns and the relationship between mantle flow velocities and a variety of continental strength profiles is explored. A series of scaled analogue vice experiments explore the effects of regional orogeny on a continental hinterland, with some experiments containing a strong lower crustal strength heterogeneity, designed to test the possible influence of the Mid Continental rift beneath the Michigan basin. The results of both types of experiment demonstrate that quasi-circular subsidence patterns within the Michigan basin may have been formed due to convective mantle downwelling, while the effects of regional orogeny and long wavelength folding dramatically influenced subsidence patterns during the Taconic and Acadian orogenies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".