MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W204452751

A detrital zircon provenance study of the Lower Carboniferous sequences in the East Fife section of the Midland Valley of Scotland

2014· article· en· W204452751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sean Murchie, R. A. J. Robinson, Penelope J. Lancaster

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvenanceGeologySiliciclasticZirconPaleocurrentPaleozoicCarboniferousClastic rockLithostratigraphyPaleontologySedimentary rockFluvialDetritusGeochemistryStructural basinSedimentary depositional environment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detrital zircons from the Lower Carboniferous clastic rocks of the Midland Valley of Scotland have been dated using U-Pb laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) to determine which source areas contributed sediment to the basin during its development, and to investigate whether provenance changed during deposition of these units. Specific provenance detection using U/Pb dating of zircons has never been attempted in these rocks, and there are uncertainties remaining about the regional paleogeographic setting for the Midland Valley. Four samples from the Dinantian Strathclyde Group have been analysed, and the units are locally known as the Fife Ness, Anstruther, Pittenweem, Sandy Craig, and Pathhead formations. The formations are composed of shallow marine, deltaic, fluvial and floodplain deposits and these predominantly siliciclastic sedimentary rocks are interbedded with thin fossiliferous carbonate bands. The samples are quartz arenitic, sub-arkosic and lithic arkosic medium-grained sandstones, predominantly from a fluvial origin. The British Geological Survey developed a lithostratigraphy which is the most used framework for the Strathclyde Group (Browne et al., 1997), but a different biostratigraphical framework based on palynology has been proposed by Owens et al. (2005). In addition to identifying provenance, the zircon age populations for each formation are compared to test which stratigraphic framework is correct. More broadly, the provenance data provides a way to improve the regional palaeogeographic setting for the Midland Valley. Zircon ages in the Strathclyde Group are dominated by Late Mesoproterozoic to Late Palaeoproterozoic (0.9 – 2.0 Ga) and Early Palaeozoic (350 – 450 Ma) ages which reflect Caledonide (Laurentian-Baltica margin including Scotland, Scandinavia, Greenland, Newfoundland), Grampian and internal Midland Valley source areas. Notable peaks occur at 400 Ma, 1.0 —1.1 Ga, 1.3 Ga, 1.6 – 1.7 Ga, and 2.7 Ga, and the Proterozoic age peaks are consistent with a Dalradian source. Although the age spectra for each formation are broadly similar, the proportions of age populations differ and age peaks present in the Anstruther Formation are absent in other formations. For instance, the Anstruther Formation has a significantly larger proportion of Archaean-aged zircons compared to the Pittenweem Formation, and contains a 1.3 Ga peak which is absent in the other formations. This suggests that source areas evolved throughout the deposition of the Strathclyde Group. The dominance of Mesoproterozoic and Palaeoproterozoic ages relative to Palaeozoic ages contrasts to similar ages units in the Pennine Basin and offshore North Sea, where the latter dominate the age spectra (Hallsworth et al., 2000; Morton et al., 2001). This may reflect the proximity of the Dalradian terrane and organisation of river systems draining into the Fife section of the Midland Valley during the Dinantian.

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)0.001
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research AbstractsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207