MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982964163

Large Heterogeneities in the Greenland Lithosphere and upper Mantle

2004· article· en· W6982964163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithosphereSeismometerRayleigh wavePhase velocityLove waveSeismogramSeismic tomographyAsthenosphere
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teleseismic Love and Rayleigh waves recorded by the GLATIS project (Greenland Lithosphere Analysed Teleseismically on the ice sheet) have been analysed for phase velocities using a two-station method. The data set consists of broad band recordings from 19 seismograph stations in Greenland, as well as data from IRIS station ALE in northern Canada. Four of the BB seismographs in Greenland are permanent, the rest are temporary with deployment periods ranging from three months to four years. We have obtained good quality phase velocities for Love and Rayleigh waves in the period range from 25 to 150 seconds for 45 different two-station paths across Greenland. This provides us with information about velocity heterogeneities through the entire lithosphere and covering a large part of central to southern Greenland. An isotropic tomographic inversion was used to combine the phase velocity information from the dispersion curves in order to produce phase velocity maps for Greenland at several different periods. The most significant lateral variation in phase velocity is found at intermediate periods, where a high-velocity anomaly is resolved beneath central-southwestern Greenland, and a low-velocity anomaly is found beneath southeastern Greenland. Results from Love and Rayleigh waves will be compared.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)Same topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207