Structural and stratigraphic study of the Keewatin-type and Shebandowan-type rocks west of Thunder Bay, Ontario / G. Heather Brown. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed mapping was carried out in the Shebandowan \nLakes area and eastward to the Kaministiquia River to study \nthe structural and stratigraphic relationships between the \nKeewatin and Timiskaming rocks (herein referred to as \nKeewatin-type and Shebandowan-type, respectively, to avoid \nconnotations of time-stratigraphic equivalence with type \nareas) of the region. \nIt is believed that the Shebandowan-type rocks are \nyounger than the Keewatin-type rocks. Although no actual \ncontact between the two has been seen in outcrop in the \nstudy area, the trend of their contact is discordant with the trend of cleavage in the Shebandowan-type rocks. This, \nalong with the less recrystallized appearance of the \nShebandowan-type rocks, and the presence of clasts of \njasper in conglomerates of the Shebandowan-type sequence \nsimilar in appearance to the jaspilitic iron formation \ninterbedded with the Keewatin-type mafic volcanics, leads \nto the conclusion that an unconformity separates the two \ngroups of rocks. Recent geochronological work on some of \nthe rocks in the region, carried out by the Ontario \nGeological Survey, supports this theory. \nThe macroscopic, microscopic and sub-microscopic \nstructure of both groups of rocks was examined in detail. \nThe minor structures seen in outcrop, the examination of \nthin sections, scanning electron microscope work, and the \ndetermination of the magnetic fabric of the rocks all show \nthat the rocks in the present study area contain a single, \npenetrative, primary cleavage, which has a consistent trend \nacross the whole area. The regional structural picture \nwhich emerges from the data is characterized by \nclose-spaced, isoclinal folding with sub-vertical fold \naxial traces trending roughly east-west. Local variations \nexist in the eastern portion of the study area where more \nwidely-spaced and open folding is more common. No evidence \nof a second, significant period of deformation in the \npresent study area has been found.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".