MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389780738 · doi:10.1111/maps.14113

3‐D geophysical modeling of a buried, simple impact crater: Holleford impact structure, Ontario, Canada

2023· article· en· W4389780738 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. H. Armour, Joseph I. Boyce, Zackary Shulman, David R. Zilkey

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYork University
KeywordsGeologyImpact craterImpact structureBasementOutcropPaleozoicClastic rockFluvialGravity anomalyMagnetic anomalyOrdovicianGeomorphologyGeophysicsPetrologyPaleontologyStructural basinOil field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Holleford Crater is a deeply buried, 2.35 km diameter late Proterozoic‐early Cambrian (550 ± 50 Ma) simple impact crater located in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Exploration drilling in the 1950–60s indicated a >450 m deep, simple impact structure with an infill stratigraphy of Cambro‐Ordovician clastic and carbonate sediments and a −2.2 mGal gravity anomaly. We conducted new ground‐based geophysical surveys (magnetics, gravity) and potential field modeling to better resolve the buried impact structure depth, subsurface geometry, and postimpact modification. Geophysical surveys reveal a well‐defined ~3 mGal Bouguer gravity low and <20 nT residual magnetic anomaly over the crater basin. The lack of a well‐defined magnetic anomaly is due to the low magnetic contrast between Mesoproterozoic metasedimentary target rocks and Paleozoic infill sediments. The modeled basement surface shows a deeply buried (>400 m), eroded simple impact structure with a rim‐to‐rim diameter ( D ) of 1.8–2 km, a residual rim height of about 30 m and a true depth ( d t ) >400 m. The modeled diameter is smaller than the previous estimate (2.35 km) based on the surface outcrop pattern of Paleozoic strata, which overestimates the buried impact structure dimensions. The modeled basement surface identifies a rim breach and a possible fluvial outflow channel in the southeast impact structure rim. The channel is up to 150 m deep and 400 m in width and has morphology similar to outlet channels produced by fluvial rim dissection of terrestrial impact structures and “tadpole craters” on Mars.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207