MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283214985 · doi:10.5194/icg2022-368

Assessment of relative tectonic activity in the Trichonis Lake graben (Western Greece) a combined approach using geomorphometry and Self Organising Maps

2022· preprint· en· W4283214985 on OpenAlexaff
Efthimios Karymbalis, Kanella Valkanou, Giandomenico Fubelli, Maria Ferentinou, ‪Konstantinos Tsanakas, Philip Giles

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGrabenTectonicsSinuosityGeomorphologyNeotectonicsStructural basinDrainage basinHalf-grabenFault (geology)Active faultFluvialQuaternarySeismologyPaleontologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The geomorphometric analysis of mountain fronts, drainage networks and catchments in tectonically active areas can provide valuable information about the spatial distribution of relative tectonic activity. The aim of this study is to investigate the contribution of neotectonics to the development of the fluvial landscape of the broader Trichonis Lake area (located in western continental Greece) through quantitative geomorphological analysis. The Trichonis Lake graben is a is a late Plio-Quaternary extensional basin, which cuts across the early Tertiary NW-SE fold and thrust structures of the Pindos Mountain belt. It strikes WNW–ESE for a distance of 32 km and has a width of 10 km. The graben at the north and south flanks of the lake is bounded by E-W and NW-SE trending faults. Recent seismic activity (a shallow earthquake sequence in 1975 and a 2007 earthquake swarm) showed the existence of a NNW-SSE normal fault that dips to the NE and bounds the SE shore of the lake. The studied catchments have developed on the hanging walls of these active normal faults. To evaluate the relative tectonic activity in the study area, various morphometric indices including stream length-gradient index, drainage basin asymmetry factor, hypsometric integral, valley floor width-valley height ratio, drainage basin shape, drainage basin slope, relief ratio and Melton's ruggedness number were measured for 35 catchments. In addition, mountain-front sinuosity index has been estimated for 20 mountain fronts around the lake. For the measurement of the geomorphometric variables a digital elevation model (with 5 m cell size), derived from topographic maps at 1:5000 scale (with 4 m contour lines), was used. The catchments of the study area were classified into three classes based on the morphometric variables and a series of maps showing their spatial distribution were produced by applying GIS techniques. The combination of these morphometric variables yielded two new indices of relative tectonic activity (named IRTA: Index of Relative Tectonic Activity and IAT: Index of Active Tectonics). Based on the values of IRTA and IAT, the area was classified into three classes of relative tectonic activity (low, medium, and high). To evaluate the landscape around Lake Trichonis in terms of neotectonic activity, we identified clusters of drainage networks and catchments according to their geomorphic characteristics (expressed by the geomorphometric indices) using self-organizing map, which is a type of unsupervised artificial neural network (ANN). The analysis showed that the development of the landscape of the central part of the northern flanks of the graben has been highly influenced by the tectonic uplift since these catchments are characterized by high IRTA and IAT values which correspond to high relative tectonic activity. The study of these fault-generated mountain fronts showed that although both <em>graben flanks</em> have low sinuosity index values, the central segment of the north flank of the graben has slightly lower values which are indicative of active tectonics.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207