MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004683683 · doi:10.1144/0016-76492009-120

Anatomy, emplacement and evolution of a shallow-level, post-tectonic laccolith: the Mt Disappointment pluton, SE Australia

2010· article· en· W2004683683 on OpenAlexaff
J. D. Clemens, K. Benn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlutonGeologyPaleontologyTectonicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Late Devonian, high-level, post-orogenic Mt Disappointment pluton was emplaced as a nested laccolith. Field observations and magnetic fabric (anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility) data show that the monzogranitic to granodioritic magmas entered the pluton from a central, linear feeder. The first set of magmas solidified to a non-megacrystic unit and the second to a unit carrying K-feldspar megacrysts. Emplacement was accommodated partly by uplift of the overburden on brittle marginal faults. The magmas were produced through mid- to deep crustal (<600 MPa) partial melting of a source containing both ‘igneous' and ‘sedimentary' rocks, possibly a package of volcaniclastic and aluminous metagreywackes. The spectrum of magma compositions was not formed through any differentiation or magma mixing process. At the source, the melt compositions varied as a result of mixing between liquids derived from the two main source rocks, with variations in the amount of plagioclase component that entered the melt. The degree of entrainment of peritectic orthopyroxene and ilmenite appears to have controlled the Fe, Mg and Ti contents of the magma batches. A variety of evidence suggests that magma withdrawal from the protolith was rapid and episodic. The magma batches so formed were emplaced into the growing pluton essentially without further chemical evolution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207