MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108144852 · doi:10.1130/2017.0048(01)

Effects of sedimentary facies on structural styles in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Fold and Thrust Belt

2017· book-chapter· en· W3108144852 on OpenAlexaffabout
N. J. Bégin, B. Veilleux

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsARC Resources (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFaciesForeland basinFold (higher-order function)Hydrocarbon explorationSedimentary depositional environmentSedimentary rockSedimentologyThrust faultGeomorphologyTerranePaleontologyFault (geology)StratigraphyFold and thrust beltTectonicsPetrologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Rocky Mountain Fold and Thrust Belt west of Calgary, Alberta, has a long history of surface geologic mapping and hydrocarbon exploration. Many of these data are in the public domain. As a consequence of this excellent data set, the stratigraphy, sedimentology, and structural geology are very well understood. Major stratigraphic boundaries or facies transitions within Paleozoic units control structural detachment levels, the mechanical behavior of these lithotectonic units, and the structural styles observed. Fault terminations such as lateral ramps and relay zones often occur within depositional fairways comprised of less competent strata. The major facies transition near Field, British Columbia, and the resulting contrast in structural styles between the Eastern Main Ranges and Western Main Ranges will be observed. Two dip transects across the belt will document the foreland progression of major thrust faults or fault systems, and attempt to tie the age of these faults to the timing of terrane accretion and deformation events observed to the west within the southern Canadian Cordillera.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society of America eBooksSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207