Geology of the Tincup Lake area, southwestern Yukon : implications for the tectonic evolution of the western margin of the Yukon-Tanana terrane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lineup lake area (NTS 115G/1114) comprises 12 map units of polyfolded upper greenschist to lower amphibolite facies metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks correlated with assemblages of Yukon-Tanana terrane. Mapping at a scale of 1: 20,000 was carried out, resulting in the identification of four generations of late Permian (?) to late Cretaceous folding and two generations of late Cretaceous, or younger, faulting in the lineup lake area. Well exposed Cal marble marker units constrain the orientation and geometry of map units in this structurally complex area. In the southern part of the lineup lake area the map pattern is controlled by F2 long limbs that are moderately to steeply S dipping. In the northern part of the lineup Lake area, Sdipping or gently NW-dipping F3 limbs control the map pattern. South-dipping, brittle normal faults crosscut folds and are in turn cut by a network of nearvertical, dextral strike-slip faults striking 305°-335° and with 500- 2000m spacing. The steep faults are inferred to be related to the Denali fault and were coeval with regional strike-slip faults that cut the Late Cretaceous to Early Paleocene Ruby Range Batholith to the south. South-dipping, brittle normal faults crosscut folds and are in turn cut by a network of nearvertical, dextral strike-slip faults striking 305°-335° and with 500- 2000m spacing. The steep faults are inferred to be related to the Denali fault and were coeval with regional strike-slip faults that cut the Late Cretaceous to Early Paleocene Ruby Range Batholith to the south.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".