MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118873629

Significance of first-order faults in folding mechanically isotropic layers: evidence from the Sudbury Basin, Canada.

2016· article· en· W3118873629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin D. Clark, Ulrich Riller

Bibliographic record

VenueEGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySlip (aerodynamics)Fold (higher-order function)GeometryAnisotropyCrustIsotropyBrittlenessStructural basinKinematicsPetrologyFault (geology)SeismologyMaterials scienceGeophysicsGeomorphologyComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Sudbury Basin is a non-cylindrical fold basin demarcated by the layered Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC), the eastern part of which is transected by prominent curved faults. Folding of the SIC and adjacent rock units occurred in the brittle field and is peculiar due to its petrographically distinct, but initially mechanically similar layers. Overall, the layers are characterized by low levels of solid-state strain raising the question how the layer contacts acquired their curvature. We addressed this question by developing a G.I.S.-based workflow to analyze the orientation and slip vectors of the faults. Slip vectors form clusters of normal and reverse slip along a given fault. The clustering is best interpreted in terms of successive slip events during folding of the SIC. As the faults formed most likely as planar reverse faults prior to folding of the SIC they subsequently served as mechanically anisotropic elements to fold the SIC. The results contribute to (1) better understand the folding mechanisms of thick melt sheets in the upper crust, (2) explain apparently incompatible principal strain axes during progressive deformation, and (3) efficiently analyze the orientation and kinematics of fault zones close to the Earth's surface.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEGU General Assembly Conference AbstractsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207