MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100021082 · doi:10.1080/00206810009465078

Geospeedometry and Time Scales of High-Pressure Metamorphism

2000· article· en· W2100021082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. L. Perchuk, Pascal Philippot

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Geology Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamorphismMetamorphic rockGeologyTerraneMassifZoningLithosphereGeochemistryRidgeCratonPetrologySeismologyPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kinetic theory allows the calculation of a time scale for metamorphic events using the extent of relaxation of garnet growth zoning along a particular P-T trajectory. Eclogitic garnets from the Kokchetav Massif (Kazakhstan), the Great Caucasus (Russia), and the Yukon-Tanana terrane (Canada) experienced different metamorphic P-T histories and display different types of zoning patterns, which allowed testing of a variety of geospeedometric procedures. In all cases, the preservation of sharp compositional gradients and hence the limited degree of diffusive modification of garnet compositions can be explained if associated tectono-metamorphic processes were of very short duration. Results of diffusion modeling indicate rates of temperature and pressure change on the burial and/or the exhumation path on the order of several hundreds of °C/m.y. and several cm/yr, respectively. These extreme exhumation and cooling rates apply for rocks buried to a depth greater than, for example, 20 km, thus arguing for the existence of contrasted velocity fields for eclogitic block exhumation from deep versus shallow levels of the lithosphere.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Geology ReviewSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207