MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089205495 · doi:10.1139/e05-071

Cordierite-gedrite rocks from the Central Metasedimentary Belt boundary thrust zone (Grenville Province, Ontario): Mesoproterozoic metavolcanic rocks with affinities to the Composite Arc Belt

2005· article· en· W2089205495 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
William H. Peck

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryProtolithMetamorphismVolcanic rockPetrologyZirconFelsicMaficVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cordierite–gedrite rocks in the southern Grenville Province occur near the base of the Central Metasedimentary Belt boundary thrust zone, interpreted by some as a crustal suture between the 1.29–1.24 Ga Composite Arc Belt and >1.4 Ga rocks of Laurentia. Major and trace-element compositions of these rocks are consistent with volcanic protoliths that range in composition from basalt to dacite. These cordierite–gedrite rocks have low CaO (average 1.2 wt.%) and major element and oxygen-isotope ratios suggestive of hydrothermal alteration before metamorphism. Rare-earth element (REE) compositions also indicate igneous protoliths, although some REE patterns have been modified by local melt extraction. The trace-element compositions of cordierite–gedrite rocks, and neodymium-isotope systematics, are similar to those of metavolcanic rocks in the Composite Arc Belt and are consistent with the extension of the Composite Arc Belt to the base of the boundary thrust zone.

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)0.000
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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