MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geochemical confirmation of the Kula-Farallon slab window beneath the Pacific Northwest in Eocene time

2003· article· en· W2109135282 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Breitsprecher, Derek J. Thorkelson, Wesley G. Groome, J. Dostál

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyWindow (computing)SeismologySlabPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plate tectonic models indicate subduction of the Kula-Farallon spreading ridge, and thus imply formation of the Kula-Farallon slab window, beneath western North America from Late Cretaceous to middle Eocene time. Seafloor magnetic anomalies, however, pro- vide few constraints on the configuration of the subducted ridge and the location of the slab window. We use geochemical data from Eocene igneous rocks to provide an estimate of the slab window's position at 50 Ma. Contouring of the trace element ratios K 2O/SiO2, Rb/Zr, and Ta/Ce for lavas of the Eocene Challis-Kamloops volcanic belt demonstrates a southward trend toward enriched geochemical character. This trend is consistent with a Pacific Northwest position for the slab window; this is supported by the presence of adak- ites (slab melts) near the Canada-United States border, and by ca. 51 Ma forearc intru- sions and volcanic rocks on Vancouver Island that are regarded as products of ridge subduction. A new reconstruction of the slab window's geometry over time indicates that its chemically defined position is kinematically viable.

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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations141
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207