MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075706825

Regional seismic wave propagation (Lg & Sn phases) in the Amerasia Basin and High Arctic

2015· article· en· W7075706825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repository National Institute of Polar Research (National Institute of Polar Research (Japan)) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinental crustCrustStructural basinSeismic refractionContinental shelfArcticContinental marginRefractionReceiver function
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observation of Lg seismic waves at regional distances has long been considered indicative of continental crust that is 30–40 km thick. This study updates an earlier assessment of Lg propagation efficiency to characterize continental or non-continental crust and related structures across the Amerasia Basin and surrounding continental areas of the high Arctic. Recent refraction surveys and receiver function studies provide crustal thickness estimates of 18–41 km for comparison. Among 7000 candidate earthquake–station pairs considered, no classic Lg phases (0.14–2 Hz) are observed to cross the Amerasia Basin (Canada Basin, Alpha-Mendeleev Ridge) efficiently, but lower frequency (0.035–0.17 Hz) arrivals with group velocities intermediate between Lg and Sn (sometimes called early Lg) are observed along many ray paths crossing the basin. The characteristic frequencies of these observed arrivals match well with those of synthetic waves propagated within models with thinned or pinched continental crust, such as crust characteristic of the North Sea, and thus suggest that most parts of the Amerasia Basin have a crustal thickness intermediate between that typical of thin continental and oceanic crust.

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)0.001
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repository National Institute of Polar Research (National Institute of Polar Research (Japan))Same topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207