MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402694509 · doi:10.1111/1755-6724.15176

Twin Horsetailing Structures in the Extensional Regime based on Physical Experiment

2024· article· en· W4402694509 on OpenAlexaff
Haigang Lao, Hongyuan Xu, Yongshi Wang, Cui Mao, Osman Salad Hersi, Dianheng LI

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Geologica Sinica - English Edition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtensional definitionGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Horsetailing is an important feature to identify the strike‐slip structure and indicates the movement mode of the fault. However, the formation mechanism of horsetailing in the extensional regime remains unclear. In this study, the formation process of horsetailing is reproduced through physical experiment, simulating the Linnan sag in the extensional regime. The results of the physical experiment demonstrates that the formation of the horsetailing in the extensional regime requires two phases of non‐coaxial stretching plus the segment of the principal fault. The stretching distance in the early phase is slightly smaller than that in the middle–late phase. The segment point of the principal fault is only the intersection of the horsetailing structure and the principal fault. The horsetailing formed in the extensional regime is different from that in the strike‐slip regime. For the formation of structure, the principal fault is dip‐slip in the early phase and then becomes an oblique‐slip in the middle–late phase, and the horsetailing is composed of the middle–late new tensile faults. The fault properties of the horsetailing in the extensional regime has important guiding significance for the longitudinal fluid migration along the fault in petroliferous basins.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Geologica Sinica - English EditionSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207