MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W324454769

Characteristics of the Ejecta Layer from the 1.85 Ga Sudbury Impact Event: Are Analogous Sediments Present on Mars?

2010· article· en· W324454769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philip Fralick

Bibliographic record

VenueLPICo · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyEjectaImpact craterStructural basinGeochemistryVolcanoCratonDeposition (geology)SedimentPaleontologyGeomorphologyAstrobiologyTectonics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At 1850 Ma an object, probably in excess of ten kilometers in diameter, struck the edge of Superior Craton in the area that is now Sudbury, Ontario. The impact produced the second largest known crater on the surface of the Earth, propelling an immense amount of material into the atmosphere. Twenty-five million years prior to the collision the southern margin of Superior Craton west of the impact site consisted of a continental volcanic arc separated from the continent proper by an extensional backarc basin collecting chemical sediment of the Gunflint Formation. At the time of the impact, orogeny to the south of present day Lake Superior had caused the sea to withdraw from the northern portion of the basin and possibly from the entire basin. The ejecta blanket landed in this setting, was altered by subareal diagenesis and fifteen million years later was buried by sediment of the transgressing ocean. Thus, in some areas preserving a record of deposition from what was probably the expanding base surge of the impact event.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLPICoSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207