MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791138120 · doi:10.1134/s0001437018010125

Structure of Subsurface Sediments in the Scan Basin (Scotia Sea)

2018· article· en· W2791138120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Al. A. Schreider, A. A. Schreider, A. E. Sazhneva, Jesús Galindo-Zaldı́var, Patricia Ruano, Andrés Maldonado, Y. Martos-Martín, F.J. Lobo

Bibliographic record

VenueOceanology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinOceanographyNova scotiaGeomorphologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structure of sediments in the Scotia Sea is used as a basis for reconstructing the geological history of its bottom in the Late Quaternary. The Scan Basin is one of the main elements of the topography of the southern Scotia Sea. Its formation played a considerable role in the fragmentation of the continent, which included the Bruce and Discovery banks. The main parameters of the sediment layer in the Scan Basin have been reconstructed by the present time, but its top part has not been studied. In this work, we analyze the first data obtained on the R/V Gesperidas with the use of a TOPAS PS 18/40 high-resolution seismic profilograph in 2012. Three layers in the subsurface sediments on the bottom of the Scan Basin were specified for the first time. The mean periods of their deposition in the Late Quaternary were determined as 115000 years for the first, 76000 years for the second, and 59 000 years for the third layer from the surface of the bottom. The duration of the total accumulation period of the three layers is about 250000 years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOceanologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207