MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415748524 · doi:10.1130/2025.2565(07)

Sinistral shear zones along the central and southern portions of coastal British Columbia, Canada

2025· book-chapter· en· W4415748524 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
George E. Gehrels, Jordan V. Wang, Paul Kapp, Mark Pecha

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinistral and dextralCretaceousTerraneShear zoneShear (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Large-scale (>600–1100 km) left-lateral offsets during Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous time have long been inferred to explain the distribution of terranes in the Canadian portion of the North American Cordillera, but identification of structures with the correct age, location, and magnitude to accommodate such large displacements remains a significant challenge. Previous studies along the coast of British Columbia identified an ~250-km-long system of orogen-parallel intra-arc sinistral shear zones that may have accommodated some of these predicted motions, but crosscutting relationships could only constrain an ~20-m.y.-long period of motion in the late Early Cretaceous at the end of shear zone activity (ca. 125–100 Ma). In this chapter, we present new mapping from the same region that more than doubles the documented extent of sinistral shear zones recognized by previous workers. Complementary structural analysis and U-Pb (zircon) geochronology on synkinematic and postkinematic intrusions confirm that most shear zones were active during Early Cretaceous time (ca. 112 Ma) and demonstrate that some were active during Late Jurassic to earliest Cretaceous time (ca. 165–143 Ma). This extended time of motion supports the hypothesis that large-scale (~800 km) sinistral motion occurred along the northern Cordilleran margin.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.153 · 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.

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 venueGeological Society of America eBooksSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207