Oligocene-Neogene lithospheric-scale reactivation of Mesozoic terrane accretionary structures in the Alaska Range suture zone, southern Alaska, USA: Comment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waldien et al. (2021) present new bedrock geologic mapping, U-Pb geochronology, and 40Ar/39Ar thermochronology from the eastern Alaska Range in south-central Alaska to determine the burial and exhumation history of metamorphic rocks associated with the Alaska Range suture zone, interpret the history of faults responsible for the burial and exhumation of the metamorphic rocks, and speculate on the relative importance of the Alaska Range suture zone and related structures during Cenozoic reactivation. They also propose that ultramafic rocks in their Ann Creek map area in south-central Alaska (herein referred to as the “Ann Creek ultramafic complex”) correlate with the Pyroxenite Creek ultramafic complex in southwestern Yukon, and that this correlation is “consistent with other estimates of >400 km” of offset on the Denali fault. However, despite Waldien et al.’s (2021) claim that the purportedly offset ultramafic rocks are “similar” and that characteristics of the Ann Creek ultramafic complex “make a strong case” for a faulted portion of an Alaska-type ultramafic intrusion, their paper gives short shrift in describing the Pyroxenite Creek ultramafic complex and in discussing previous estimates of displacement on the Denali fault. In Addition, Waldien et al. (2021) are either unaware of or ignore several key references of the Pyroxenite Creek ultramafic complex and estimates of displacement on the Denali fault. As a result, Waldien et al.’s (2021) claim of a “correlation” between allegedly offset ultramafic rocks is suspect, and their reference to “other estimates of >400 km” of offset on the Denali fault is incorrect, or at the very least misleading.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".