MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382401530 · doi:10.1144/sp525-2023-25

Rapid glacial sedimentation and overpressure in oozes causing large craters on the mid-Norwegian margin: integrated interpretation of the Naust, Kai and Brygge formations

2023· article· en· W4382401530 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Bellwald, Ben Manton, Nina Lebedeva‐Ivanova, Dmitry Zastrozhnov, Reidun Myklebust, Sverre Planke, Carl Fredrik Forsberg, Maarten Vanneste, Jacques Locat

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOverpressureImpact craterGeomorphologyGlacial periodGeochemistryPaleontologyPetrology

Abstract

Abstract Along continental margins with rapid sedimentation, overpressure may build up in porous and compressible sediments. Large-scale release of such overpressure has major implications for fluid migration and slope stability. Here, we study if the widespread crater-mound-shaped structures in the subsurface along the mid-Norwegian continental margin are caused by overpressure that accumulated within high-compressibility oozes sealed by low-permeability glacial muds. We interpret 56 000 km 2 of 3D and 150 000 km 2 of 2D-cubed seismic data in the Norwegian Sea, combining horizon picking, well ties and seismic geomorphological analyses of the crater-mound landforms. Along the mid-Norwegian margin, the base of the glacially influenced sediments abruptly deepens to form 28 craters with typical depths of c. 100 m, areal extents of up to 5130 km 2 and volumes of up to 820 km 3 . Mounds are observed in the vicinity of the craters at several stratigraphic levels above the craters. We present a new model for the formation of the craters and mounds where the mounds consist of remobilized oozes evacuated from the craters. In our model, repeated and overpressure-driven sediment failure is interpreted to cause the crater-mound structures, as opposed to erosive megaslides. Seismic geomorphological analyses suggest that ooze remobilization occurred as an abrupt energetic and extrusive process. The results also suggest that rapidly deposited, low-permeability and low-porosity glacial sediments seal overpressure that originated from fluids being expelled from the underlying high-permeability and high-compressibility biosiliceous oozes.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Seismic interpretation of craters on the Norwegian margin; marine geology.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The work studies geological crater formation and sediment overpressure rather than research.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Marine geology of glacial sedimentation and crater formation; earth science domain.

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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207