MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014746353 · doi:10.4095/321900

Faults and lineaments of the Western Quebec Seismic Zone, Quebec and Ontario

2020· report· en· W3014746353 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maurice Lamontagne, P Brouillette, S Grégoire, M -P Bédard, Wouter Bleeker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLineamentSeismologyGeologyGeographySeismic zoneTectonicsInduced seismicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Open File contains the interpreted brittle lineaments and a compilation of mapped faults of an area bound by latitudes 44°N and 48°N and longitudes 73°W and 80°W. The area includes most of the Ottawa River watershed. It also covers most of eastern Ontario and the Laurentians, between Montréal (QC) and North Bay (ON). The study area includes the seismically active region known as the Western Quebec Seismic Zone (WQSZ). The WQSZ is an area where earthquakes as large as magnitude 6.2 have occurred in the past and where tens of smaller earthquakes are recorded yearly. Our study is an attempt to provide a homogeneous coverage of these brittle structures through an integration of visually interpreted lineaments and mapped faults. The possible relationships between these brittle faults and earthquakes will be examined later. Lineaments were observed mostly from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Canadian National Topographic Data Base (NTDB) at a scale of 1:250 000. The DEMs illuminated from two directions were used to first visually recognize lineaments and second, to georeference their surface expressions in a Geographic Information System (GIS). Since the final goal was to better map the brittle faults that could be reactivated in earthquakes, the clear ductile structures were not considered in this study and the more questionable ones re-evaluated subsequently against known geological information. Most of the region of interest is southeast of the Grenville Front, where all ductile structures are related to the Grenville orogeny (about 1 billion years ago). The recognition of brittle structures is based on the observation that they are essentially linear in plan view. On the other hand, the ductile structures are generally curved, enhance contact between different Grenvillian lithologies, or present a distinct structural pattern. With a few exceptions, only lineaments with a length greater than 5 km were included. After a first detection pass, lineaments at a more regional scale were drawn by interpolating between segments of lineaments. These interpolated segments corresponded to areas where the topography was subdued and where no conspicuous trace existed. The interpreted lineaments were then compared with the provincial geological maps of Quebec and Ontario, which often did not distinguish between brittle faults and ductile shear zones. Lineaments that coincided with diabase dykes were recognized by consulting geological maps and by examining the total magnetic field. Our final product is a 1:750,000 scale map that can be used in the future to better understand the seismotectonics of this region.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.004

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207