MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2909009131 · doi:10.4095/213077

Lower Cretaceous stratigraphy and tectonics of eastern Bella Coola map area, southwest British Columbia

2002· report· en· W2909009131 on OpenAlexaffabout
L C Struik, J. Brian Mahoney, M G Hrudey, L J Diakow, G J Woodsworth, J W Haggart, T P Poulton, H A Sparks, Elke Kaiser

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBELLACretaceousStratigraphyPaleontologyGeologyTectonicsArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lower Cretaceous stratigraphic units in the study area consist mainly of flows and fragmental rocks that include basalt and andesite, minor rhyolite and dacite, and epiclastic intervals of sandstone, slate, siltstone, and conglomerate. These rocks are correlated with the Monarch volcanic rocks widespread to the southeast, lie nonconformably on Early Cretaceous plutons, and are interpreted to be deposited onto older plutonic suites. The Cretaceous succession may have formed during east-west crustal extension, and later was tightly to isoclinally and asymmetrically folded to the northeast. The succession appears to have been deposited on an Early Cretaceous topographic high that had sufficient relief to host marine basins and adja-cent subaerial hills. The Hazelton Group appears to be absent beneath the Cretaceous succession. Known mineralization (primarily copper) in the Cretaceous volcano-sedimentary rocks is mainly associated with pluton contacts or fault zones. The slate units almost everywhere have minor disseminated pyrite.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and Exploration→French-language works237,207→