Emplacement of an Archean gneiss dome, northern Ontario, Canada: Inflation inferred from magnetic fabrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous field structural studies of the Ash Bay gneiss dome revealed an upward convex foliation with an integral east‐west lineation defined by a quartzo‐felspathic matrix. Unfortunately, the amphibolite facies gneisses lack traditional indicators of microfabric evolution, such as kinematic indicators, so that it is difficult to relate the foliation's orientation distribution to an emplacement mechanism for the dome. Fortunately, anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility isolates a distinct microfabric because of the preferred orientation of high‐susceptibility, accessory magnetite. The magnetite subfabric developed late in the metamorphic crystallization history, and its magnetic foliation and magnetic lineation are similarly oriented to the S‐L fabric of the quartz‐feldspar matrix. However, the magnetite foliation dips less steeply and forms a less convex domal surface than the field schistosity. The metamorphic schistosity and the magnetite foliation thus isolate the domal deflection at different stages, confirming the inflation and upward motion of the Ash Bay diapir during the closing stages of amphibolite facies metamorphism.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".