Magnetotelluric study of Howley Basin, \nNewfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a better understanding of the Howley Basin and \nits hydrocarbon potential using a magnetotellurics (MT) survey. This sedimentary \nbasin is located in western Newfoundland, and is covered by the Howley formation \nwhich is only found in this basin. Very little is know about the basin and its structure. \nThe Rocky Brook formation, which consists of organic rich mudstone that is known \nfor generating hydrocarbons, is found in the adjacent Cormack Basin and is believed \nto be present in the Howley Basin as well. \nThe MT method is a passive electromagnetic method that is sensitive to the electrical \nconductivity structure of the subsurface. The source for MT is completely natural, \nresulting from the flow of charged particles in the ionosphere (e.g. from solar storms) \nand from lightning strikes. These cause natural variations in the Earth’s magnetic \nfield which in turn result in induced currents in the subsurface. \nMT sounding of an 18 km long profile was conducted in August and September 2013, \ncrossing from the Topsail Igneous Complex formation into the Howley formation at \nabout 3 km from the southeast end of the survey and extending to the anticipated \nlocation of the boundary between the Howley and Cormack Basins in the northwest. \nThe Howley Basin is characterized by higher conductivities than the surrounding igneous basement. Strike analysis reveals the basin has a preferred geo-electric orientation \nof 9⁰ with the deeper structures having a preferred strike of 33⁰. A range of 2D \ninversions were performed for both strikes. TM mode only inversion yielded the best \nresults with misfit (least square fit to the observed impedances) of 3.9 for the strike \nof 9⁰ and 2.4 for the strike orientation of 33⁰. The MT data suggest a maximum \nthickness of the basin along the profile of approximately 2 km and that the basin \nis decreasing in thickness towards its eastern boundary. There are also indications \nof a conductive feature or features extending beneath the basin, possibly related to \nfaulting through the basin and into the basement or of a step in the base of the basin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".