MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022117386 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v12n1p65

Wrench Tectonism and Intracontinental Basin Sedimentation: A Case Study of the Moku Sub-Basin, Upper Benue Trough, Nigeria

2020· article· en· W3022117386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ifeanyi A. Oha, Ikenna Anthony Okonkwo, Silas Sunday Dada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinTrough (economics)Echelon formationFault (geology)Pull apart basinGeomorphologySedimentary basin analysisSedimentary basinPaleontologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Upper Benue trough of Nigeria consists of basins and horsts characterized by numerous structural features. Detailed study of one of the basins revealed sets of “centimetric”, riedel type “en-echelon” NE-SW trending strike slip faults contained in a number of brittle and ductile shear zones characterizing the basement/sediment boundary. Structural analysis suggests that the Moku sub-basin has been pulled apart along a releasing bend in between NE – SW strike slip faults and that three principal axes of stress were acting on the sub-basin during its formation. The maximum stress (1) with orientation 34/304 was responsible for the fault overlap (basin length), whereas the minimum stress (σ_3) with orientation 18/201 controlled the fault separation (basin width). These suggest a qualitative model showing the Moku sub-basin as a separate basin, which must have coalesced with adjacent sub-basins. Deposition of Bima sediments in the basin was closely controlled by tectonism. The immature B1 sediments are restricted mostly to the faulted margin of the basin. The more matured B2 and B3 sediments are distributed around the less disturbed areas.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207