MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2098534

The quest for earth's oldest crust

2000· article· en· W2098534 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. V. Sankaran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of law and ethics in dentistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyCrustContinental crustGeochemistryOceanic crustSedimentary rockEarth scienceResiduumPaleontologySubductionTectonics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geologists have been probing various continental terrains in search of possible remnants of earliest crust that may have survived more than four billion years (b.y.) of earth’s history, the first 10 to 100 million years (m.y.) of which were catastrophic, marked by intense volcanism and impacts from meteorites. Earlier views of a globe circling veneer of ‘sialic’ crust arising from a residuum of crystallizing molten earth, are not favoured and it is now believed that the pre-4 b.y. crusts were essentially oceanic basalts or possibly high magnesian komatiites produced under the prevailing high temperature conditions. In fact, crust formation studies, based on Nd isotopes, have revealed that roughly 8% of crust had formed by the time the earth was 0.5 b.y. old and about 60%, by 2.6 b.y. (refs 1, 4). Now, the discovery of 4.14–4.28 b.y. old detrital zircons within younger sedimentary strata in Mt. Narryer complex in western Australia and a few near 4 b.y. old zircons from other places have spurred interest among the geological community to look for their provenance or parent rocks. Since zircons occur as accessories, mostly in granites, it is likely that their source rocks were granitic, which must have remained stable for periods long enough to be weathered down to provide materials, including these zircons for the younger sedimentary sequences. For the past two decades, attempts by geologists to find crusts that had formed between 4.0 and 4.5 b.y. could lead them only close to the 4 b.y. mark. The Acasta gneissic area in the Slave Province (NW Territories, Canada) forming part of a mesoto palaeo-Archaean continental crust in the Canadian Shield was found retaining rocks older than 3.6 b.y., the oldest among them being 3.96 b.y. (ref. 8). Exposures quite close in age to these gneisses occur in western Greenland (3.8–3.6 b.y. Itsaq gneisses), MontanaWyoming in USA (3.4 b.y. gneisses), W. Australia (3.63 b.y. orthogneiss), Antarctica (3.9 b.y. granulites, Enderby Land) and China (3.8 b.y. Sino-Korean Craton) (Figure 1). In India, 3.0 to 3.3 b.y. rocks have been reported in Singbhum, N. Orissa (tonalite gneisses within Singhbhum granite), Karnataka (Gorur-Hassan gneiss), Goa (trondjemite gneiss) and Rajasthan (amphibolite, Udaipur). The discovery of such crusts in India and elsewhere, formed close to 4 b.y. mark (although the slightly higher ages reported are contested) indicating development of stable geological conditions by then, had raised hopes for locating still older relicts. In this quest over the last few years, field and laboratory investigations by geologists from Canada, USA and Australia in the Acasta gneissic region pushed the record of rock age closer than ever before to the 4.5 b.y. mark. Recognition of rocks formed within 0.5 b.y. of earth formation requires a precise isotope dating technique and availability of suitable materials preserving in toto the radiogenic products to testify their antiquity. The mineral zircon, highly resistant to weathering processes and low-grade metamorphism, is ideal in this respect. However, alpha particles from decaying uranium, present in small amounts, damage the mineral’s lattice (metamictization) making it susceptible to alteration and consequent leak

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of law and ethics in dentistry→Same topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils→French-language works237,207→