MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089723584 · doi:10.12789/geocanj.2020.47.161

Accretion, Soft and Hard Collision: Similarities, Differences and an Application from the Newfoundland Appalachian Orogen

2020· article· en· W3089723584 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyForearcSubductionTerraneMetamorphismAccretionary wedgeAccretion (finance)UnderplatingVolcanic arcOceanic crustGeochemistryCrustPaleontologyCollisionPetrologySeismologyTectonicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We argue there is no distinction between accretion and collision as a process, except when accretion is used in the sense of incorporating small bodies of sedimentary and/or volcanic rocks into an accretionary wedge by off-scraping or underplating. There is also a distinction when these terms are used in classifying mountain belts into accretionary and collisional orogens, although such classifications are commonly based on a qualitative assessment of the scale and nature of the accreted terranes and continents involved in formation of mountain belts. Soft collisions occur when contractional deformation and associated metamorphism are principally concentrated in rocks of the leading edge of the partially pulled-down buoyant plate and the upper plate forearc terrane. Several young arc-continent collisions show evidence for partial or wholesale subduction of the forearc such that the arc is structurally juxtaposed directly against lower plate rocks. This process may explain the poor preservation of forearcs in the geological record. Soft collisions generally change into hard collisions over time, except if the collision is rapidly followed by formation of a new subduction zone due to step-back or polarity reversal. Thickening and metamorphism of the arc's suprastructure and retro-arc part of upper plate due to contractional deformation and burial are the characteristics of a hard collision or an advancing Andean-type margin. Strong rheological coupling of the converging plates and lower and upper crust in the down-going continental margin promotes a hard collision. Application of the soft–hard terminology supports a structural juxtaposition of the Taconic soft collision recorded in the Humber margin of western Newfoundland with a hard collision recorded in the adjacent Dashwoods block. It is postulated that Dashwoods was translated dextrally along the Cabot-Baie Verte fault system from a position to the north of Newfoundland where the Notre Dame arc collided ca. 10 m.y. earlier with a wide promontory in a hyperextended segment of the Laurentian margin.

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)0.000
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.164 · 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