New insights into Arctic paleogeography and tectonics from U‐Pb detrital zircon geochronology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test existing models for the formation of the Amerasian Basin, detrital zircon suites from 12 samples of Triassic sandstone from the circum‐Arctic region were dated by laser ablation‐inductively coupled plasma‐mass spectrometry (ICP‐MS). The northern Verkhoyansk (NE Russia) has Permo‐Carboniferous (265–320 Ma) and Cambro‐Silurian (410–505 Ma) zircon populations derived via river systems from the active Baikal Mountain region along the southern Siberian craton. Chukotka, Wrangel Island (Russia), and the Lisburne Hills (western Alaska) also have Permo‐Carboniferous (280–330 Ma) and late Precambrian‐Silurian (420–580 Ma) zircons in addition to Permo‐Triassic (235–265 Ma), Devonian (340–390 Ma), and late Precambrian (1000–1300 Ma) zircons. These ages suggest at least partial derivation from the Taimyr, Siberian Trap, and/or east Urals regions of Arctic Russia. The northerly derived Ivishak Formation (Sadlerochit Mountains, Alaska) and Pat Bay Formation (Sverdrup Basin, Canada) are dominated by Cambrian–latest Precambrian (500–600 Ma) and 445–490 Ma zircons. Permo‐Carboniferous and Permo‐Triassic zircons are absent. The Bjorne Formation (Sverdrup Basin), derived from the south, differs from other samples studied with mostly 1130–1240 Ma and older Precambrian zircons in addition to 430–470 Ma zircons. The most popular plate tectonic model for the origin of the Amerasian Basin involves counterclockwise rotation of the Arctic Alaska–Chukotka microplate away from the Canadian Arctic margin. The detrital zircon data suggest that the Chukotka part of the microplate originated closer to the Taimyr and Verkhoyansk, east of the Polar Urals of Russia, and not from the Canadian Arctic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".