Detrital zircon geochronology and provenance of Devono-Mississippian strata in the northern Canadian Cordilleran miogeoclineThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme of <i>Geochronology</i> in honour of Tom Krogh.Northwest Territories Geoscience Office Contribution 0047. Geological Survey of Canada Contribution 20100432.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
U–Pb ages have been determined on detrital zircons from the Upper Devonian Imperial Formation and Upper Devonian – Lower Carboniferous Tuttle Formation of the northern Canadian Cordilleran miogeocline using laser ablation – multicollector – inductively coupled plasma – mass spectrometry. The results provide insights into mid-Paleozoic sediment dispersal in, and paleogeography of, the northern Canadian Cordillera. The Imperial Formation yielded a wide range of detrital zircon dates; one sample yielded dominant peaks at 1130, 1660, and 1860 Ma, with smaller mid-Paleozoic (∼430 Ma), Neoproterozoic, and Archean populations. The easternmost Imperial Formation sample yielded predominantly late Neoproterozoic – Cambrian zircons between 500 and 700 Ma, with lesser Mesoproterozoic and older populations. The age spectra suggest that the samples were largely derived from an extensive region of northwestern Laurentia, including the Canadian Shield, igneous and sedimentary provinces of Canada’s Arctic Islands, and possibly the northern Yukon. The presence of late Neoproterozoic – Cambrian zircon, absent from the Laurentian magmatic record, indicate that a number of grains were likely derived from an exotic source region, possibly including Baltica, Siberia, or Arctic Alaska – Chukotka. In contrast, zircon grains from the Tuttle Formation show a well-defined middle Paleoproterozoic population with dominant relative probability peaks between 1850 and 1950 Ma. Additional populations in the Tuttle Formation are mid-Paleozoic (∼430 Ma), Mesoproterozoic (1000–1600 Ma), and earlier Paleoproterozoic and Archean ages (>2000 Ma). These data lend support to the hypothesis that the influx of sediments of northerly derivation that supplied the northern miogeocline in Late Devonian time underwent an abrupt shift to a source of predominantly Laurentian affinity by the Mississippian.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".