MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056572874 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2013-0145

A review of the inferred geodynamic evolution of the Dharwar craton over the ca. 3.5–2.5 Ga period, and possible implications for global tectonics

2013· review· en· W2056572874 on OpenAlexaffvenue
P. V. Sunder Raju, P.G. Eriksson, Octavian Catuneanu, S. Sarkar, Santanu Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyDharwar CratonGeochemistryArcheanCratonGneissMetamorphismGreenstone beltSupercontinentMetamorphic rockTectonicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geological history and evolution of the Dharwar craton from ca. 3.5–2.5 Ga is reviewed and briefly compared with a second craton, Kaapvaal, to allow some speculation on the nature of global tectonic regimes in this period. The Dharwar craton is divided into western (WDC) and eastern (EDC) parts (separated possibly by the Closepet Granite Batholith), based on lithological differences and inferred metamorphic and magmatic genetic events. A tentative evolution of the WDC encompasses an early, ca. 3.5 Ga protocrust possibly forming the basement to the ca. 3.35–3.2 Ga Sargur Group greenstone belts. The latter are interpreted as having formed through accretion of plume-related ocean plateaux. The approximately coeval Peninsular Gneiss Complex (PGC) was possibly sourced from beneath plateau remnants, and resulted in high-grade metamorphism of Sargur Group belts at ca. 3.13–2.96 Ga. At about 2.9–2.6 Ga, the Dharwar Supergroup formed, comprising lower Bababudan (largely braided fluvial and subaerial volcanic deposits) and upper Chitradurga (marine mixed clastic and chemical sedimentary rocks and subaqueous volcanics) groups. This supergroup is preserved in younger greenstone belts with two distinct magmatic events, at 2.7–2.6 and 2.58–2.54 Ga, the latter approximately coincident with ca. 2.6–2.5 Ga granitic magmatism which essentially completed cratonization in the WDC. The EDC comprises 2.7–2.55 Ga tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG) gneisses and migmatites, approximately coeval greenstone belts (dominated by volcanic lithologies), with minor inferred remnants of ca. 3.38–3.0 Ga crust, and voluminous 2.56–2.5 Ga granitoid intrusions (including the Closepet Batholith). An east-to-west accretion of EDC island arcs (or of an assembled arc – granitic terrane) onto the WDC is debated, with a postulate that the Closepet Granite accreted earlier onto the WDC as part of a “central Dharwar” terrane. A final voluminous granitic cratonization event is envisaged to have affected the entire, assembled Dharwar craton at ca. 2.5 Ga. When Dharwar evolution is compared with that of Kaapvaal, while possibly global magmatic events and freeboard–eustatic changes at ca. 2.7–2.5 Ga may be identified on both, the much earlier cratonization (by ca. 3.1 Ga) of Kaapvaal contrasts strongly with the ca. 2.5 Ga stabilization of Dharwar. From comparing only two cratons, it appears that genetic and chronologic relationships between mantle thermal and plate tectonic processes were complex on the Archaean Earth. The sizes of the Kaapvaal and Dharwar cratons might have been too limited yet to support effective thermal blanketing and thus accommodate Wilson Cycle onset. However, tectonically driven accretion and amalgamation appear to have predominated on both evolving cratons.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207