MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910367555 · doi:10.4095/226148

Ellesmerian fold-and-thrust belt (northeast Ellesmere Island, Nunavut) and its Eurekan overprint

2008· report· en· W2910367555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karsten Piepjohn, Werner von Gosen, F. Tessensohn, Kerstin Saalmann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFold (higher-order function)GeologyThrustGeochemistryEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between the Lake Hazen Fault Zone and Nares Strait on northeast Ellesmere Island, a several kilometre thick succession of deep-water and shelf deposits of the early Paleozoic Franklinian Basin was affected by Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous Ellesmerian deformation (D1). Dominant structures were long anticlines and synclines, and detachment faults above a major décollement at the base of the Franklinian Basin. In the Early Tertiary, sinistral strike-slip tectonics (D2) affected the Franklinian deposits and Paleocene basins parallel to Nares Strait. In the Eocene, all structures, as well as the D2-strike-slip faults, were affected or reactivated by Eurekan deformation (D3). Crustal shortening took place along the Ellesmerian décollement and was dominated by thrusting. On the surface, the Eurekan structures are characterized by major, hundreds-of-kilometres long, distinct thrust zones with subordinate, thrust-related fold structures (F3), and are interpreted as large-scale splay thrusts ramping up from the basal décollement. In the areas between those thrust zones, already folded during the Ellesmerian deformation, no evidence for Eurekan overprint was found.

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 score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207