Detached structural model of the Keweenaw fault system, Lake Superior region, North America: Implications for its origin and relationship to the Midcontinent Rift System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Keweenaw fault system along Lake Superior’s south shore in Michigan, USA is one of the most significant fault systems associated with North America’s Midcontinent Rift System. Reverse slip has thrust Portage Lake Volcanics (ca. 1.1 Ga) southeastward over Jacobsville Sandstone (ca. 1.0 Ga). Growing consensus in the 1970s about a major rift beneath Lake Superior led to the idea that reverse movement on the Keweenaw fault involved inversion of a rift-bounding normal fault. To test this idea, we integrated bedrock geology maps, subsurface mining data, and geophysical data to build a wellconstrained cross-section from the Minnesota, USA-Ontario, Canada border to central Upper Michigan. The cross-section shows the Keweenaw and Hancock faults to be parts of a reverse, listric system detached deep within the layered volcanic section. Correlation of offshore seismic units with onshore stratigraphic units defines a gradual change in stratal dip from 55° NW near the faults to horizontal near the center of Lake Superior. This stratal geometry implies that onshore listric fault geometry continues offshore and that the fault system soles into a basal detachment at 12–15 km depth. Absence of second-order folds northwest of the peninsula indicates that the fault system does not ramp downward from the basal detachment through the lower crust. The observations and model preclude ideas that the Keweenaw fault was a rift-bounding normal fault inverted by post-rift crustal shortening, or that it formed by upward propagation of a deeper normal fault undergoing inversion. Instead, our results imply that the fault initiated as a detached thrust in relatively brittle upper crust and that shortening of relatively ductile lower crust occurred on other structures.
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 | 0.001 | 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".