MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322011544 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-13457

Zooming into the transition between thrusting and strike-slip in an intra-continental compressional setting

2023· preprint· en· W4322011544 on OpenAlexaff
Saskia Köhler, Daniel Koehn, Harald Stollhofen, Hamed Fazlikhani, Tobias Stephan, Florian Duschl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraplate earthquakeGeologyStyloliteSeismologyStress fieldPaleontologyTectonicsOrogenySlip (aerodynamics)Alpine orogenyCretaceousMesozoicDiagenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated Mesozoic sequences of the Franconian Platform (SE Germany) according to their deformation history. Based on field observations we performed fault-slip and stylolite stress inversion. We could distinguish two stress cycles in an intraplate compressional setting starting with (i) normal faulting, (ii) thrusting and the development of folds and tectonic stylolites (iii) and strike-slip regimes. The first cycle is caused by the Europe-Iberia-Africa collision in the Cretaceous, while the second cycle is induced by the Cenozoic Alpine orogeny. We can zoom into the transition between the thrusting and strike-slip regime of the first cycle by the preservation of a stress field with none principal stress being in the vertical axis. The combination of field and microscopic observations shows a rather complex chronology of this relatively short time span with alternating sedimentary and tectonic stylolites.With our work we contribute to the understanding of stress development in intraplate compressional settings.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→