The Appalachian area as a tectonostratigraphic analogue for the Barents Sea shelf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The US Appalachian Basin and the Arctic Norwegian and Russian Barents Sea shelf (BSS) areas are two strategic provinces for the energy industry. The Appalachian Basin is a well‐studied, mature, onshore basin, whereas the offshore BSS is still considered a frontier area. This study suggests that the Appalachian Basin may be an appropriate analogue for understanding the BSS and contribute to development of a tectonostratigraphic framework for the area. Although the Appalachian and BSS areas reflect different times and settings, both areas began as passive margins that were subsequently subjected to subduction and continent collision associated with the closure of an adjacent ocean basin. As a result, both areas exhibited multi‐phase subduction‐type orogenies, a rising hinterland that sourced sediments, and a foreland‐basin sedimentary system that periodically overflowed onto an adjacent intracratonic area of basins and platforms with underlying basement structures. Foreland‐basin sedimentary systems in the Mid‐to‐Late Palaeozoic Appalachian Basin are composed of unconformity‐bound cycles related to specific orogenic pulses called tectophases. Each tectophase gave rise to a distinct sequence of lithologies related to flexural events in the orogen. In this study, similar sequences are recognised in both BSS foreland‐basin and adjacent intracratonic sedimentary sequences that formed in response to the Late Palaeozoic–Mesozoic Uralian–Pai–Khoi–Novaya Zemlya Orogeny, suggesting that the processes generating the sequences are analogous to the tectophase cycles in the Appalachian Basin. Hence, this pioneering use of the Appalachian area and its succession as large‐scale tectonostratigraphic analogues for the BSS may further enhance understanding of Upper Palaeozoic to Middle Jurassic stratigraphy across the BSS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".