MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907287955 · doi:10.4095/313307

A comprehensive review and reappraisal of the Howell Creek Structure: indication of multiple extension events in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains, southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta

2018· review· en· W2907287955 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glen S. Stockmal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchaeologyGeologyExtension (predicate logic)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Howell Creek structure was first mapped 60 years ago as a structural window (fenster) through the Lewis Thrust, where Upper Cretaceous foreland basin strata are bounded on all sides by Mesoproterozoic through Triassic platformal strata. Later interpretations ranged from the involvement of cryptic thrust and normal faults to a coherent gravitational slide. None of these, however, has adequately accounted for all available observations and constraints within the context of structural styles and physiography normally encountered in thin-skinned thrust-and-fold belts. Recent GIS map compilation required a reappraisal of these interpretations. Rather than a structural window, the Howell Creek structure is interpreted to lie entirely within the Lewis Thrust sheet. The Howell Fault, which places Upper Cretaceous Alberta Group strata onto Mississippian to Triassic strata and bounds the Cretaceous exposures to the southeast, is considered to be a low-angle normal fault. It may have formed initially as a footwall cut-off, splaying from and merging structurally upward with a thrust fault (the Twentynine Mile Creek Fault) that bounds the Cretaceous exposures to the southwest. Much of the Twentynine Mile Creek Fault was reactivated as a normal fault prior to the well-known Oligocene normal fault motion on the large-offset Flathead Fault, which lies to the east and north of the Howell Creek structure. The Shepp Fault, which is antithetic to but closely associated with the Flathead Fault, truncates the Twentynine Mile Creek Fault north of the Howell Creek structure. The Twentynine Mile Creek Fault reappears north of the Flathead Fault as the Squaw Fault, which is also reinterpreted as a normal-sense-reactivated thrust fault, explaining unusual structures near Flathead Pass. The northwest boundary of the Cretaceous exposures in the Howell Creek structure is marked by the reinterpreted and newly named Fuel Creek Fault, which is a small-displacement down-to-the-southeast normal fault. It is probably contemporaneous with the larger Harvey Fault, which bounds the Cretaceous exposures to the northeast and is a down-to-the-southwest normal fault related to the development of the Flathead half-graben. Normal-sense motion on the Twentynine Mile Creek, Howell, and Squaw faults clearly predates the Flathead and Harvey faults, by virtue of high-angle cross-cutting relationships, and may also predate or even coincide with development of sub-Lewis Thrust contractional duplex structures. The age of the Flathead Fault is constrained by the Early to early Late Oligocene Kishenehn Formation that fills the half-graben above the fault. Isolated exposures of Kishenehn Formation lie within and immediately adjacent to the Howell Creek structure. Balanced structural reconstructions indicate erosion of a minimum of 1.5 km of Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata after initial normal-sense motion on the Twentynine Mile Creek and Howell faults, but prior to deposition of the Kishenehn Formation. Coupled with estimates of Oligocene and earlier erosion rates, this suggests that local normal-sense motion on the Twentynine Mile Creek, Howell, and Squaw faults could have occurred prior to the end of regional contractional deformation of the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains, perhaps developing above an active sub-Lewis Thrust duplex structure.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207