MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296879326 · doi:10.4095/329963

Bedrock geology, Mount Raymond, Yukon, NTS 116-I/8

2022· report· en· W4296879326 on OpenAlexaffabout
L S Lane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyDevonianPaleozoicPaleontologyCarboniferousThrust faultOutcropUnconformityOrdovicianTrough (economics)CretaceousSedimentary rockLate Devonian extinctionFault (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mount Raymond map area incorporates the western limb of the Richardson anticlinorium, southern Richardson Mountains, northern Yukon. It is underlain by four Paleozoic sedimentary successions: middle Cambrian Slats Creek Formation, Cambrian to Early Devonian Road River Group, Devonian Canol Formation, and Late Devonian to Carboniferous Imperial and Tuttle formations. The Richardson trough depositional setting of the first three successions is succeeded by a deep-marine, turbiditic, Ellesmerian, orogenic foredeep setting for the Imperial-Tuttle succession. Several major thrust faults and related folds transect the map area from north to south. The carbonate-dominated Road River Group defines a west-dipping homocline, modified by the Mount Raymond thrust fault together with minor folds in its footwall. In the overlying Imperial-Tuttle succession, map-scale folds are defined where shales are interbedded with persistent sandstones. Steep reverse faults in the east may have reactivated Cambrian rift faults. The structural geometry reflects Late Cretaceous-Cenozoic regional Cordilleran tectonism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.007

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and Exploration→French-language works237,207→