Use of Topographic Map Evidence From Drainage Divides Surrounding Wyoming’s Great Divide Basin to Compare Two Fundamentally Different Regional Geomorphology Paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Divide crossings (or low points or gaps) notched into the North American east-west continental divide segments completely encircling Wyoming’s Great Divide Basin interior drainage region (as observed on detailed topographic maps) are used to compare the commonly accepted regional geomorphology paradigm with a fundamentally different and new regional geomorphology paradigm. Paradigms are sets of rules governing how a scientific discipline conducts its research and are judged on their ability to explain observed evidence. Published literature is used to contrast an accepted paradigm interpretation that east-oriented drainage previously flowed across what is now the Great Divide Basin with the new paradigm basic requirement that mountain range and continental divide uplift occurred while immense south-oriented floods flowed across them. Numerous divide crossings are notched into the continental divide segments now completely encircling the relatively flat-floored Great Divide Basin interior drainage area and divide crossings observed along each of the Great Divide Basin’s north, east, south, and west margins are described and interpreted first from the accepted paradigm perspective (using published literature interpretations to the extent possible) and second from the new paradigm perspective. The published literature does not mention most of the described divide crossings, much less provide explanations for their origins, perhaps because the accepted paradigm cannot satisfactorily explain those origins. In contrast the new paradigm successfully explains most if not all of the described (and observed, but undescribed) divide crossings, although the new paradigm requires a completely different middle and late Cenozoic regional geologic history than what most published regional geology literature describes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".