MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025548197 · doi:10.1111/ter.12469

An alternative interpretation for the formation of doubly plunging folds in sandstone terrains

2020· article· en· W3025548197 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shaocheng Ji, Le Li

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyFold (higher-order function)TerrainStructural basinGeometryDome (geology)Deformation (meteorology)Transverse planeGeomorphologyPetrologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Folds are marvellous features of mountain terrains, but despite extensive research, many fundamental problems have still not been solved. In terrains of sandstone, fold hinges are rarely straight lines but curved, forming a pattern characterized by doubly plunging, elliptical dome‐and‐basin structures. Such structures are an obvious manifestation of coeval or successive shortening deformation in two orthogonal principal directions in the horizontal plane. Based on an anatomic investigation of the fold pattern of sandstone beds at the rocky beaches of Saint‐Jean‐Port‐Joli (Quebec, Canada), we propose that the doubly plunging folds may result from a transition from a plane deformation to a constrictional deformation due to auxetic effects of quartz‐rich rocks. The sandstone beds possessed potentially such negative values of Poisson's ratio that, when placed under compression in one direction, they become contracted in the transverse direction, producing a series of doubly plunging folds. Further work is needed to approve or disapprove the interpretation.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207