MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099231822

1 WIRGO in TIC's? [What (on Earth) is Really Going On in Terrestrial Impact Craters?] or Structural Evidence from Shock Metamorphism

2015· article· en· W7099231822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterBrecciaShock metamorphismShock (circulatory)Impact structureHomogeneous
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada is well endowed with impact craters formed in crystalline rocks with relatively homogeneous physical properties. Representative craters are listed below. They exhibit all the main morphological-structural variations with crater size seen in craters on other rocky planets, from small simple bowl to large peak and ring forms. They demonstrate that form is not dependent on variations in the physical properties of the target material, though such variations may be important modifiers. Lacking stratigraphy, analysis is based largely on the imprint of shock melting and metamorphism, to give insights into the mechanics of crater formation. Attention is directed to the limit of initial brecciation due to shock wave reverberations and its position of relative to level of shock metamorphism, and the distribution of shocked target that lies in the para-autochthone outside the limit of breccia development. In addition the form and distribution of late stage shears and breccias formed by late stage movements is important. Simple craters, exemplified by Brent (D=3.8km) allow direct comparison with models and experimental data. Results of interest include:

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3560.085

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.160 · 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.

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 topicPlanetary Science and Exploration→French-language works237,207→