MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098817519

1 Exhumation and Uplift History of the Central Coast Mountains, British Columbia, from

2000· article· en· W7098817519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransectSea levelElevation (ballistics)CenozoicGlacial periodDenudationTectonic upliftRange (aeronautics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apatite (U-Th)/He ages reveal three distinct periods in the exhumation history of the central Coast Mountains (~54oN). A well-developed helium partial retention zone indicates little or no exhumation between ~30 and 10 Ma. Beginning at 10 Ma and extending to at least 4 Ma the range experienced steady but slow exhumation of ~ 220 m/Myr. Sometime after 4 Ma the exhumation rate increased by at least a factor of two. An 85 km-long He age transect across the orogen at sea level shows that vertical offsets on post 10 Ma faulting are minor. Furthermore, the sea-level He ages (14 to 2.8 Ma) inversely correlate with mean elevation along the traverse. Our preferred interpretation is that the Coast Mountains first appeared as a significant topographic feature only within the last few Myrs. This history is not consistent with suggestions that uplift and exhumation of the range occurred in the Early- Middle Miocene in association with formation of the Queen Charlotte Basin. We speculate that 2 intense alpine and continental glaciation after 2.5 Ma triggered differential isostatic uplift and creation of the modern topography of the Coast Mountains.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.167
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFrench-language works237,207