The evolution of the Onaping Formation at the Sudbury impact structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract– The 1.4–1.6 km thick Onaping Formation consists of a complex series of breccias and “melt bodies” lying above the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC) at the Sudbury impact structure. Based on the presence of shocked lithic clasts and various “glassy” phases, the Onaping has been described as a “suevitic” breccia, with an origin, at least in part, as fallback material. Recent mapping and a redefined stratigraphy have emphasized similarities and differences in its various vitric phases, both as clast types and discrete intrusive bodies. The nature of the Onaping and that of other “suevitic” breccias overlying impact melt sheets is reviewed. The relative thickness, internal stratigraphic and lithological character, and the relative chronology of depositional units indicate multiple processes were involved over some time in the formation of the Onaping. The Sudbury structure formed in a foreland basin and water played an essential role in the evolution of the Onaping, as indicated by a major hydrothermal system generated during its formation. Taken together, observations and interpretations of the Onaping suggest a working hypothesis for the origin of the Onaping that includes not only impact but also the interaction of sea water with the impact melt, resulting in repeated explosive interactions involving proto‐SIC materials and mixing with pre‐existing lithologies. This is complicated by additional brecciation events due to the intrusion of proto‐SIC materials into the evolving and thickening Onaping. Fragmentation mechanisms changed as the system evolved and involved vesiculation in the formation of the upper two‐thirds of the Onaping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".