Recognition of crustal extension in the Basin and Range Province: A history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Basin and Range Province of the western United States has inspired or augmented many important geological ideas but is most famous for the concept of crustal extension. Acceptance of the concept was a slow process. Prior to the recognition of plate tectonics, extension was unexpected and hard to understand; when mapping of the region began in the 1860s, mountain ranges were assumed to be the products of crustal compression due to contraction of the Earth. The first mapping suggested that ranges are anticlinal folds, but the idea of uplift along vertical range-bounding faults arose shortly thereafter. There was recognition starting in the 1880s that at least some faults were normal-sense rather than vertical, which implied extension, but there were decades of dissent by geologists who still promoted the anticlinal-folding idea, thought that inclined faults were reverse faults, or believed that the basins and ranges were created by water or wind or glacial erosion rather than tectonics. Normal faulting gradually became widely accepted, but comprehension of its meaning was hindered by apparent thrust faults in parts of the province that suggested contractional deformation. These faults would later be interpreted as low-angle normal faults, and crustal extension became widely, though not universally, accepted in the 1960s as magnetic anomalies confirmed seafloor spreading. Roughly a century elapsed between the first geologic mapping and general acceptance of crustal extension. A parallel evolution of thought occurred in Africa as a consensus arose that rift valleys were products of extension.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".