appropriate terminology for karst-like phenomena: the problem with ‘pseudokarst’
Clicks: 246
ID: 136850
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
246 views
48 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #12 of 28 articles by views in iimb management review
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The practice of referring to certain morphologically karst-like phenomena as ‘pseudokarst’ is problematic, because it ignores basic principles of sound classification, logical naming conventions and accepted geomorphic classifications and terminology. These problems have compounded the difficulty in establishing an accepted classification of ‘pseudokarst’ types. The practice embodies a karst-centric perspective which should be avoided in favour of using conventional geomorphic terminology for non-karstic features. We illustrate this by providing existing conventional terms for many ‘pseudokarst’ types reported in the literature.
| Reference Key |
rolan2013internationalappropriate
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Eberhard Rolan;Sharples Chris |
| Journal | iimb management review |
| Year | 2013 |
| DOI |
http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.42.2.2
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.