MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055514373

The Chicxulub impact crater and its influence on the regional hydrology in Northwestern Yucatan, Mexico

2011· article· en· W7055514373 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterExtinction eventCrater lakeEarth (classical element)Extinction (optical mineralogy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1980 Luis Alvarez et al. proposed a revolutionary theory: the large mass extinction that occurred at the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) limit (65 million years ago) was a consequence of the impact of a large bolide with Earth (Alvarez et al. 1980). This theory was considered highly controversial, particularly because it took over a decade to “discover” the crater. However, research about these phenomena on Earth became relevant only a couple of decades ago. The investigations on some important craters, such as Sudbury crater (e.g., Dressler and Sharpton 1999), Manson crater (e.g., Grieve 1989), Popigai crater (e.g., Masaitis et al. 1999), and Ries crater (e.g., Stöffler 1977; Hörz et al. 1983; Newsom et al. 1990; Von Engelhardt 1990), along with about 120 other craters discovered so far on the surface of Earth, proved that these events are not as rare as once thought. With the discovery of Alvarez et al. (1980) it was also proposed that these kinds of phenomena might have had a relevant, if not main, role in the evolution of life on Earth. In this chapter we present a brief summary of the importance of the Chicxulub impact crater, its discovery, and how it influences regional hydrogeology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)Same topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207