CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Structural evolution of the Sudbury impact structure in the light of seismic reflection data

Boerner, D. E., Milkereit, B.·1999·Large meteorite impacts and planetary evolution; II
DOI 10.1130/0-8137-2339-6.419
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1130/0-8137-2339-6.419

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The presence of pseudotachylitic breccia suggests that the Benny Belt and Pumphouse shear zones were (re)activated as a consequence of the impact at Sudbury.

    “Although Boerner and Milkereit (1999) proposed that structures such as the Benny Belt and Pumphouse shear zones pre-date the impact, the presence of pseudotachylitic breccia suggests that these shear zones were (re)activated as a consequence of the impact at Sudbury (Fueten et al. 1992).”

    From Observations and interpretations at Vredefort, Sudbury, and Chicxulub: Towards an empirical model of terrestrial impact basin formation (2008) · cites this paper as Boerner and Milkereit 1999

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Boerner, D. E., & Milkereit, B.
Venue
Large meteorite impacts and planetary evolution; II
Publisher
Geological Society of America
Published
1999
DOI
10.1130/0-8137-2339-6.419
Cited by
3
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