MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996318863 · doi:10.1111/ter.12125

On the track of the elusive Sudbury impact: geochemical evidence for a chondrite or comet bolide

2014· article· en· W1996318863 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joseph A. Petrus, D E Ames, Balz S. Kamber

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsGeologyChondriteMaficGeochemistryImpact craterOrdinary chondriteShock metamorphismCrustEnstatiteHypervelocityContinental crustMeteoriteLithophileAstrobiologyPartial meltingAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Siderophile and lithophile trace element data for 69 samples from the Sudbury impact crater fill (Onaping Formation) and quartz diorite offset dikes help constrain the sources of the established moderately elevated platinum group element signature associated with the impact structure. The siderophile element distribution of the crater fill requires contributions from bulk continental crust, mafic rocks and a chondritic component. A mantle component is absent, but the involvement of mid to lower crust is implied. After considering post‐impact hydrothermal alteration, melt heterogeneity and mafic target admixture, the projectile elemental ratios were determined on a more robust data subset. Chondrite discrimination diagrams of these ratios identify an ordinary or enstatite chondrite as the most probable source of meteoritic material in the Sudbury crater fill. However, the relative and absolute siderophile element distributions within the impact structure as well as bolide size models are congruent with the bolide being a comet that had a chondritic refractory component.

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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207