Structural evolution of the Cross Lake greenstone belt in the northwestern Superior Province, Manitoba: implications for relationship between vertical and horizontal tectonism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence for both vertical and horizontal movement is well preserved in the Cross Lake greenstone belt in the northwestern Superior Province. The vertical movement components are concentrated in high-strain zones along pluton–greenstone contacts and are characterized by pluton-side-up or greenstone-side-down movement, and the geometry, kinematics, and strain distribution are consistent with a vertical tectonic model involving diapirism and sagduction. The horizontal components are concentrated in major east-southeast-trending dextral high-strain zones and in subordinate northeast-trending sinistral, antithetic high-strain zones and can be readily explained by a horizontal tectonic model involving dextral transpression. Results of a detailed structural analysis indicate that the vertical and horizontal tectonism were more or less synchronous, and there was a transition from dominantly vertical tectonism at the early stages to dominantly horizontal tectonism at the late stages. The Cross Lake Group, consisting of Timiskaming-type sedimentary rocks, was deposited in a synclinal keel between granitoid domes associated with vertical tectonism. It is suggested that synchronous vertical and horizontal tectonism was a common process in the Neoarchean and might represent a transition from dominant vertical tectonism in the Mesoarchean (and Paleoarchean?) to dominant horizontal tectonism in the Proterozoic and Phanerozoic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".