MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geochronology and Geochemistry of the Middle Proterozoic Aoyougou Ophiolite in the North Qilian Mountains, Northwestern China

2001· article· en· W1963877670 on OpenAlexaff
Mao Jingwen, Zuo Guo-chao, Jianmin Yang, Paul T. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Geologica Sinica - English Edition · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOphioliteGeochemistryProterozoicBasaltMaficPillow lavaDioritePhenocrystGabbroVolcanic rockVolcanoPaleontologyZirconTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Aoyougou ophiolite lies in an early Palaeozoic orogenic belt of the western North Qilian Mountains, near the Aoyougou valley in Gansu Province, northwestern China. It consists of serpentinite, a cumulate sequence of gabbro and diorite, pillow and massive lavas, diabase and chert. Ages of 1840±2 Ma, 1783±2 Ma and 1784±2 Ma on three zircons from diabase, indicate an early Middle Proterozoic age. The diabases and basalts show light rare‐earth element enrichment and have relatively high TiO2 contents, characteristic of ocean island basalts. All of the lavas have low MgO, Cr, Ni contents and Mg numbers indicating a more evolved character. They are believed to have been derived from a more mafic parental magma by fractionation of olivine, Cr‐spinel and minor plagioclase. Based on the lava geochemistry and regional geology, the Aoyougou ophiolite was probably believed to have formed at a spreading centre in a small marginal basin. Subduction of the newly formed oceanic lithosphere in the Middle Proterozoic produced a trench‐arc‐basin system, which is preserved in the North Qilian Mountains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Geologica Sinica - English EditionSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207