Review of manuscript entitle “Uncertainties in breakup markers along the Iberia-Newfoundland margins illustrated by new seismic data” by Annabel Causer , Lucía Pérez-Díaz , Jürgen Adam and Graeme Eagles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is to discuss breakup markers along the Iberia-Newfoundland margins based on new seismic data.The theme of the manuscript is of major scientific interest, since neither the nature, not the timing and location of breakup are well constrained along the Iberia-Newfoundland margins.Many papers, some of which are very recent, have been dedicated to this problem.I have to admit that I did not find new ideas, or new, well constrained observations that add something new to the subject.Indeed, the interpretation of the new seismic data lack a rigorous interpretation and observations and interpretations are mixed and difficult to follow (for some further comments see comments below).The manuscript reads more like a report referring to old studies and only very few new ob-C1 Printer-friendly version Discussion paper years??) l.405 to 460: This section reads more as a report than a discussion chapter.
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 | 0.008 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.118 |
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".