MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973250535 · doi:10.1139/e00-094

Magmatic evolution of the southern Great Bear continental arc, northwestern Canadian Shield: geochronological constraints

2001· article· en· W1973250535 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
S S Gandhi, James K. Mortensen, N Prasad, O. van Breemen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNexen (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersHarvard UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsGeologyTerraneZirconBatholithGeochemistryCratonBack-arc basinArcheanContinental arcPlutonismPlutonIsland arcVolcanic arcSubductionGeochronologyFelsicVolcanic rockPaleontologyMaficVolcanoTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The calc-alkaline Great Bear continental arc in the Wopmay Orogen developed after a collision ca. 1890 Ma of the Archean Slave craton with the Paleoproterozoic Hottah terrane to the west. U–Pb zircon dating of three volcanic and six intrusive rocks from the southern part of the arc shows four stages of development: (i) intrusion of a few small sodic leucogranite plutons at 1873 ± 2 Ma into a previously folded metasedimentary sequence; (ii) abundant calc-alkaline felsic volcanism and subvolcanic intrusions during the period 1870–1866 Ma, bracketed by five ages; (iii) intrusion of large calc-alkaline granitic plutons, including the Marian River batholith, dated by zircon and titanite from two samples at 1866 +2–3 Ma; and (iv) emplacement of the potassic Faber Lake rapakivi granite at 1856 +2–3 Ma. The arc was developed on the Hottah terrane due to easterly subduction of an oceanic plate under the amalgamated Slave craton – Hottah terrane. The oldest exposed rocks in the southern part of the arc are remnants of a Paleoproterozoic platformal sequence. They were regarded previously as equivalents of the initial passive margin sequence on the Slave craton, but are interpreted here as part of the Hottah terrane. The ages reported here are comparable with earlier data from the northern part of the arc, which show an age range from 1875 to 1840 Ma and also identify two suites of compositionally and temporally distinct granites. The age constraints show that the Great Bear arc evolved rapidly in time from sodic through calc-alkaline, and then, with a pause, to potassic composition.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.182
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations56
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207