Petrology, age, and tectonic setting of the Seal Island Pluton, offshore southwestern Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Seal Island Pluton outcrops only on small islands located on the continental shelf 45 km south of Nova Scotia, although geophysical data indicate that the pluton is part of large granitoid units that cover thousands of square kilometres farther offshore. Based on the island outcrops, the Seal Island Pluton consists of biotite monzogranite and muscovite–biotite monzogranite of uncertain relative age. Metasedimentary xenoliths combined with characteristic magnetic patterns indicate that the pluton intruded the Cambrian–Ordovician Meguma Group. Compared with the biotite monzogranite, the muscovite–biotite monzogranite is higher in SiO2, more peraluminous, and more depleted in heavy rare-earth elements, and also has lower εNd (–1.39 versus +0.82), possibly the result of more contamination by Meguma Group sedimentary rocks. The biotite monzogranite yielded a Late Devonian U–Pb (zircon) age of 362.8 ± 0.7 Ma. Although the relatively minor petrological differences between the two units do not preclude a co-magmatic relationship, the muscovite–biotite monzogranite could be 10–15 Ma older than the biotite monzogranite, based on its petrological similarities to parts of the onshore ca. 376–372 Ma Shelburne and Port Mouton plutons. Comparison with granite samples in offshore drill core indicates that granitoid rocks similar to those exposed on Seal and surrounding islands form part of large plutons farther offshore in the Meguma terrane. The age and petrochemical data from both onshore and offshore plutons indicate that peraluminous granitoid rocks in the Meguma terrane were derived from similar sources over a span of at least 20 million years. Magma genesis may have been related to mantle upwelling and stepping back of the subduction zone to the southeast subsequent to docking of Meguma terrane with adjacent Avalonia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".