MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907878779 · doi:10.1029/2018gl080749

Distribution of Areal Strain on Mercury: Insights Into the Interaction of Volcanism and Global Contraction

2018· article· en· W2907878779 on OpenAlexafffund
G. A. Peterson, C. L. Johnson, P. K. Byrne, R. J. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsLithosphereGeologyVolcanoVolcanismTectonicsSpatial distributionContraction (grammar)SeismologyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Shortening tectonic structures within Mercury's two largest geological units display a clear contrast in relief, length, and spatial density. The volcanic smooth plains units are deformed by smaller‐scale structures yet host more features per area than the older intercrater plains. Although faulting in the intercrater plains is dominantly attributed to global contraction, it has been unclear whether the smooth plains faults result from volcanic loading, global contraction, or both. We use estimates of fault length and displacement to calculate spatial variations of areal strain for each unit. We find that high strain concentrations within the smooth plains suggest that global contraction has contributed to deformation in these units. The observed contrast in morphology and spatial density of structures between units may primarily reflect differences in mechanical and/or structural characteristics of the lithosphere when faulting was initiated.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207