MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387770979 · doi:10.1134/s0016852123050060

Neotectonic Indications in Iraq (North of the Arabian Plate): Analytical Overview

2023· article· en· W4387770979 on OpenAlexaff
Varoujan K. Sissakian, Ala A. Ghafur, Lubna H. Abdullah, Nadhir Al‐Ansari, Jan Laue

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotectonics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTectonicsTerraneSeismologyStructural geologyCollision zonePlate tectonicsEurasian PlateCollisionNeotectonicsContinental collisionPaleontologyDeformation (meteorology)LineamentLithosphereSubductionOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Iraqi territory is located in the northeastern part of the Arabian Plate covering the collision zone with the Eurasian (Iranian) Plate in the northeast. This collision, which is still active with convergent tectonics, has caused deformation in the rocks of the Zagros Mountains with different intensities. The deformation intensity decreases southwestwards with exerted stresses from the collision in the NE–SW direction. Depending on the deformation intensity and other tectonic factors, the Iraqi territory is divided into three main tectonic units, these are from NE to SW: (1) Shalair Terrane, (2) Outer Platform, and (3) Inner Platform. Accordingly, the Inner Platform is less deformed as compared to other tectonic zones. Neotectonic evidence has been documented across all tectonic zones of Iraq; even within the Inner Platform which was assumed to be a tectonically stable zone. This study presents different Neotectonic evidence and their role in updating the tectonic framework of Iraq, confirming that the so-called Stable Shelf or Inner Platform units, which are considered tectonically to be undeformed are deformed by Neotectonic activity.

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)0.000
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotectonicsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207