MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974948583 · doi:10.1144/0016-76492011-018

Late Cretaceous–Palaeocene continental rifting in the High Arctic: U–Pb geochronology of the Kap Washington Group volcanic sequence, North Greenland

2011· article· en· W1974948583 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sigurjón B. Thórarinsson, Paul Martin Holm, Sebastian Tappe, Larry M. Heaman, Christian Tegner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRiftGeochronologyRhyoliteGeochemistryVolcanic rockZirconPaleontologyCretaceousVolcanoStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Kap Washington Group volcanic sequence is exposed on the north coast of Greenland. The sequence was erupted in a continental rift setting during the opening of the Arctic Ocean and provides important geological constraints on the timing of this event. In this study we present the first isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry U–Pb zircon ages from 10 samples of trachytic to rhyolitic composition. Samples from Lockwood Island ( n = 4) gave concordant ages between 67.2 ± 0.5 and 61.0 ± 0.3 Ma (2σ). Lavas from Kap Kane ( n = 5) yielded concordant ages between 70.5 ± 0.3 and 69.7 ± 0.2 Ma. An ignimbrite from the Kap Washington peninsula yielded a concordant age of 68.5 ± 0.3 Ma. The Kap Washington Group sequence and similar occurrences on Ellesmere Island record a prolonged period of continental rift volcanism lasting from 92 to 58 Ma. We propose that this volcanism occurred along the margins of a nascent Eurasia Basin undergoing east–west extension linked to rifting in the Labrador Sea–Baffin Bay system.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.202
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207