MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Age and provenance of early Precambrian metasedimentary rocks in the Lapland–Kola Belt, Russia: evidence from Pb and Nd isotopic data

2001· article· en· W2101677474 on OpenAlexaff
D. Bridgwater, David J. Scott, V. V. Balagansky, Martin J. Timmerman, Mogens Marker, С. А. Бушмин, N. L. Alexeyev, J. Stephen Daly

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTerraneGranuliteArcheanGeochemistryZirconPrecambrianProvenanceDetritusIsochronCratonGeochronologyPetrologyPaleontologyFaciesTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

207Pb/206Pb ages are presented for detrital zircons (Laser Ablation Microprobe ICP‐MS) and whole‐rock Nd isotopic determinations (TIMS) from samples of Neoarchean and Palaeoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks from the Umba granulite terrane and the Keivy domain of the Central Kola composite terrane, Kola Peninsula, north‐western Russia. Three are samples of rocks from the Umba granulite terrane that were deposited ≈ 2.20–1.90 Ga; they contain Archaean detritus, much of it older than 3.0 Gyr, as well as abundant 2.20–1.95‐Gyr‐old material. Deposition may have occurred on the margin of an Archaean craton with an exposed Palaeoproterozoic magmatic arc source, possibly during orogenesis. Two samples from the Keivy domain have remarkably similar, dominantly Archaean detrital zircon age spectra. One was deposited pre‐2.4 Ga, whereas the other was probably deposited post‐2.01 Ga. Both had similar sources, compatible with the proximal country rocks, and possible shallow‐water (?) cratonic margin depositional settings.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207