MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796925355 · doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2018.03.006

The role of mechanical stratigraphy in the lateral variations of thrust development along the central Alberta Foothills, Canada

2018· article· en· W2796925355 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Frontiers · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of KoreaKorea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources
KeywordsGeologyForeland basinFoothillsImbricationPaleontologyMonoclineAllochthonSedimentary rockFold and thrust beltStratigraphyThrust faultBasementFold (higher-order function)NappeFault (geology)Structural basinTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fold-thrust belts generally exhibit significant variations in structural styles such as differences in thrust geometries and frequencies in imbrication. A natural laboratory of this pattern is preserved in the central Alberta Foothills of the Canadian Rockies, where differences in thrust geometries are represented by the existence vs. non-existence of triangle zones. To seek the factors that make this difference in these regions in terms of structural geometry, stratigraphic thickness variations and mechanical stratigraphy of the sedimentary layers, structural interpretation is conducted based on admissible cross-sections and well log interpretations. In northern region, a backthrust is detached from an incompetent layer (viz. Nomad Unit of the Wapiabi Formation), which gets thinner from the Foothills to the Plains, indicating that it is developed where the shale layers are pinched out where triangle zone is developed. Backthrust is also developed in the southern region, where mechanical strengths of strata (viz. Bearpaw Formation) increase toward the foreland. In the central region, however, only forethrusts are developed along the weak continuous decollement layers (viz. Turner Valley and Brazeau formations), forming an imbricate fan without development of the triangle zone. Incompetent layers such as the top Wapiabi (Nomad), Brazeau (Bearpaw), Coalspur and Paskapoo formations are also pinched out laterally, forming fault glide horizons in different stratigraphic levels in each region. These results indicate that, along the transport direction, triangle zone is developed in relation to the stratigraphic pinch out of the Nomad Unit in the northern region, and is formed associated with the variations in strengths of the layers constituting the Bearpaw Formation in the southern region. It is notable that all the glide horizons are developed along incompetent layers. However, triangle zones are not developed in the areas of continuous stratigraphy of the Nomad Unit, which does not serve as a glide horizon in the central region. This suggests that factors such as stratigraphic thickness changes of incompetent layers and mechanical stratigraphy of the sedimentary layers play an important role in the development of lateral variations in thrust system evolution in terms of triangle zone vs. imbricate fan in the central Alberta Foothills. Keywords: Mechanical stratigraphy, Triangle zone, Imbricate fan, Central Alberta Foothills, Canadian rockies

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.166 · 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