MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294592082 · doi:10.1017/s0016756822000838

Reply to Dewey and Ryan Comment on Searle, MP (2021) ‘Tectonic evolution of the Caledonian orogeny in Scotland: a review based on the timing of magmatism, metamorphism and deformation’

2022· review· en· W4294592082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. P. Searle

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Magazine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDalradianOrogenyMetamorphismLaurentiaBalticaGeologyPaleontologyOrdovicianObductionStratotypeAlpine orogenyTectonicsPlate tectonicsSubduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I welcome the comment from Dewey and Ryan on my paper (Searle, 2021), and the chance to clarify some conflicting Caledonian tectonic models and new ideas. As outlined in the paper, my review was based on the geology of Scotland, not Ireland, Newfoundland or the rest of the Caledonian orogeny beyond, mainly because of length constraints, and the fact that my personal field experience lies mainly in Scotland. The Great Glen fault and the Moine Supergroup are not exposed at all in Ireland, so critical parts, and half of the Caledonian orogeny are missing in Ireland. I argue that the Caledonian geology of Scotland can be explained by a Laurentia – Midland valley arc-microcontinent collision, progressing from NW-directed ophiolite obduction in the Late Cambrian to crustal thickening and regional metamorphism during the Ordovician and Silurian, across the Dalradian and Moine metamorphic rocks. Caledonian structures do continue north into Greenland, as summarized by Leslie et al. (2008), but the geological evolution of the Scottish Caledonides does not require any collision with Baltica. The Dewey and Ryan comment raises major tectonic questions, which this reply addresses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological MagazineSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207