MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Western Grenville Province holds key to midcontinental Granite‐Rhyolite Province enigma

2009· article· en· W2105359477 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trond Slagstad, Nicholas Culshaw, J. Stephen Daly, R. A. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRhyoliteBalticaGeochemistryMagmatismContinental arcRiftContinental marginGneissTectonicsVolcanic rockPaleontologyMetamorphic rockOrdovicianVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Mesoproterozoic Granite‐Rhyolite Provinces in North America consist of A‐type granitic and rhyolitic rocks, and their formation is commonly ascribed to continental `extension' or `rifting'. The tectonic environment of the extension is, however, poorly understood. New Sm–Nd isotopic data from the Central Gneiss Belt, Grenville Province, Ontario, suggest that rocks compositionally and temporally similar to those in the Granite‐Rhyolite Provinces formed in and behind an active continental arc undergoing intra‐arc and back‐arc extension. Basaltic underplating accompanied extension, providing heat and juvenile material. Source rocks vary from juvenile within the arc, to more mature with increasing distance behind the arc. Recent investigations from SW Baltica show that the Rjukan Group, a proposed Granite‐Rhyolite Province correlative, also formed inboard of an active continental arc. A tectonically and temporally similar, and probably recurrent, evolution along the vast Laurentia–Baltica margin points to active continental‐margin processes as first‐order controls on back‐arc granite‐rhyolite magmatism.

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 score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations85
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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