MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091621247 · doi:10.1144/0016-764903-081

Timing of high-grade metamorphism in central Turkey and the assembly of Anatolia

2004· article· en· W2091621247 on OpenAlexaff
Donna L. Whitney, Michael A. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamorphismGeologyGeochemistryPaleozoicPaleontologyPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timing of metamorphism of the crystalline massifs in western and central Turkey (Menderes, Kırșehir, Nigde, Akdag) is important information for understanding the assembly of Anatolia and the thermal–tectonic evolution of the Turkish segment of the Alpine–Himalayan belt. The high-grade basement rocks of the massifs are polymetamorphic, and the complexity of interpreting ages obtained from zircon and other minerals has led to a longstanding debate about the significance and regional extent of Neoproterozoic v. younger (Mesozoic, Cenozoic) metamorphism. New U–Pb SHRIMP (sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe) analyses of monazite from a garnet–sillimanite gneiss in the Kırșehir Massif, central Anatolia, document Late Cretaceous (84.1 ± 0.8 Ma) high-temperature metamorphism. This Late Cretaceous age for central Anatolian metamorphism is at least 50 Ma older than Alpine metamorphism in the Menderes Massif in western Turkey. Models that propose a continuous Anatolide–Tauride tectonic zone, with central Anatolia as a promontory, cannot explain such a large time difference within a small region. Unless the Menderes ages have been reset by Aegean thermal–tectonic events, Anatolia probably formed from a collage of continental fragments rather than by simple collision of an irregular Tethyan platform with Eurasia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations93
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207