MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010548858

Fold-thrust structures: conceptual understanding, anchors and uncertainties

2019· article· en· W3010548858 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFold (higher-order function)Computer scienceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concepts are a critical element in our ability to understand and categorise natural phenomena. Indeed, the term\nfold-thrust belts is used to categorise the different natural phenomena that together define the set of structures\ncommonly found in compressional tectonic settings.Within this over-arching term sub-terms are used to categorise\nthe geometries and evolution of different sub-sets of structures. These categorizations (e.g. fault-bend fold, fault\npropagation fold etc.) include inherent conceptualisations of fold-thrust structure evolution. The concepts are\ndominated by geometrical constraints and for thrusting, by its nature, deformation localisation. We argue that the\ntrue interplay of the deformation characteristics and the controls that underpin folding and thrusting are not fully\nintegrated or represented in these categorisations. Yet we are apparently anchored to these conceptual models of\nfold-thrust belts and their structures. Evidence suggests that anchoring occurs early; from teaching examples based\non simple conceptual forms, that then dominate individuals’ future conceptual models of structures and how they\nevolve. How we present and use models, at an early stage, to explain and represent concepts can have significant\naffects.\nHere we present a series of case studies of fold-thrust belts that we use to observe the structural geometries\nand consider the different controlling mechanisms at play in their evolution. Our case studies span seismic\ninterpretations of deep-water fold-thrust structures including the Niger delta and Sabah, and field outcrops at a\nrange of scales from the Canadian Rockies to the French subalpine chain and the Variscan of S. Wales. We use\nthese case-studies to reflect on the applicability of existing conceptual models to classify fold-thrust structures. In\ndoing so we question whether the dominant existing concepts allow useful categorisation of fold-thrust structures\nto address questions such as: uncertainties in fault location, connectivity of fold-forelimb stratigraphy and the\nuse of evolutionary models to predict fault displacements and fracture patterns. We propose that a greater range\nof conceptual models are required. New concepts that better represent the observed natural phenomena should\nimprove understanding of uncertainties in fold-thrust belt models and inform probabilities of elements such as\nfault placement and linkage to help address outstanding questions in fold-thrust belt research.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.130 · 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