The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A gravity model for the Sudbury Structure along the Lithoprobe seismic line
Abstract
Previous gravity models of the Sudbury Structure (1850 Ma) were constrained by surface geology, and by density measurements of surface and borehole rock samples. Recent high‐resolution seismic reflection data provide additional constraints for modeling new gravity observations made along the Sudbury Lithoprobe transect. Results indicate, 1) density distributions constrained by the seismic data yield calculated gravity values matching the Bouguer gravity data, 2) the main sources of gravitational disturbance are external to the Sudbury Structure, 3) the positive gravity anomaly trend south of the Sudbury Structure is associated with mafic rocks of Proterozoic age, and 4) the large, ramplike, gravity anomaly paralleling the northwest margin of the Sudbury Structure is an expression of a northward dipping boundary within the Archean basement. The presence of a hidden mafic layer beneath the Sudbury Structure is not required to model the Bouguer gravity data. An enigma is an 8 mGal, positive, gravity anomaly over the south central Sudbury Structure.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Potential field modelling at Sudbury was designed more to determine whether models of the potential field data were compatible with the seismic interpretation than as an independent set of interpretations.
“They were also designed more to determine whether or not models of the potential field data were compatible with the seismic interpretation than as an independent set of interpretations (e.g., McGrath and Broome 1994).”
From Observations and interpretations at Vredefort, Sudbury, and Chicxulub: Towards an empirical model of terrestrial impact basin formation (2008) · cites this paper as McGrath and Broome 1994
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- 10.1190/1.1440410 · DOI
- Card K. D., 1984, The Sudbury Structure: Its regional geological and geophysical setting, Ontario Geological Survey, 1, 57
- Dressler B. O., 1984, General geology of the Sudbury area, Ontario Geological Survey, 1, 57
- Gupta V. K., 1984, Gravity and magnetic characteristics of lie Sudbury Structure, Ontario Geological Survey, 1, 381
- Hearst R. B.P. H.McGrathH. J.BroomeW. A.MorrisM. D.ThomasE. I.TanczykP.KeatingD. W.Haliday Gravity and magnetic interpretation along the LITHOPROBE transect of the Sudbury Structure Workshop Report 25 Abitibi‐Grenville Transect Meeting Montreal Nov. 19–20 1991
- McGrath P. H., Sudbury‐Noril'sk Symposium Proceedings
- McGrath P. H. MAGRAV ‐ An interactive gravity and magnetic modelling program for the UNIX environment Geological Survey of Canada Open File 2711a 1993 · DOI
- 10.1130/0091-7613(1992)020<0807:DGOTSS>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
- Miller A. H., 1955, Gravity in the Sudbury Basin and vicinity, Publ. Dom. Obs. Canada, 15
- Popelar J., 1971, Gravity measurements in the Sudbury area, Gravity Map Series, Earth Physics Branch, 138
- 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1979.tb00994.x · DOI
- Rousell D. H., 1984, Structural geology of the Sudbury Basin, Ontario Geological Survey, 1, 83
- 10.1139/e91-037 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0098-3004(76)90071-6 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
GRIEVE, R. A. F., REIMOLD, W. U., MORGAN, J., RILLER, U., & PILKINGTON, M. (2008) · Meteoritics & Planetary Science · doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2008.tb01086.x · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- McGrath, P. H., & Broome, H. J.
- Venue
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1994-05-15
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 955-958
- ISSN
- 0094-8276
- 1944-8007
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review