MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409891673 · doi:10.1029/2024tc008464

Circum‐Antarctic Glacially Induced Fault Reactivation Since the Last Glacial Maximum

2025· article· en· W4409891673 on OpenAlexaff
Ingra Barbosa, Rebekka Steffen, Holger Steffen, Elisabeth Seidel, Karsten Gohl, C. Hüebscher

Bibliographic record

VenueTectonics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNorsk PolarinstituttUniversität Hamburg
KeywordsGeologyGlacial periodFault (geology)GlacierSeismologyGeodesyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) has the potential to reactivate faults in the crust due to the generation of stresses caused by changes in the ice load. Research on the release of stress along pre‐existing faults, known as glacially induced faults, in Antarctica is limited due to the lack of detailed information about the region's ice sheet history, Earth's rheology, and fault parameters. Here, we analyse the reactivation potential of 62 faults since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) by calculating Coulomb failure stress changes (CFS) for a thrust faulting and a strike‐slip faulting stress regime in combination with various GIA models and stress parameters. In general, a higher fault instability was observed in a strike‐slip faulting stress regime compared to a thrust faulting stress regime. Furthermore, the ice sheet history models had a higher effect on fault instability than the Earth models. Faults located in the Ross Sea area show the highest potential of fault reactivation, while those in the Antarctic Peninsula show the lowest. Our results suggest that the potential for glacially triggered faulting has increased since the LGM in many inherited rift systems, and some faults remain unstable until today.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTectonicsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207