MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119903319 · doi:10.1144/0016-76492009-139

Laurentian origin of the Ordovician Grangegeeth volcanic arc terrane, Ireland

2010· article· en· W2119903319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian McConnell, Quentin Crowley, Nancy Riggs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsOrdovicianTerraneGeologyPaleontologyVolcanoPaleozoicVolcanic rockVolcanic arcIgneous rockEarth scienceSubductionTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: U–Pb ages determined by laser-ablation multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry on 199 zircons from a lithic pumice tuff are the first isotopic ages from the Grangegeeth volcanic terrane of Ireland. The youngest zircon population ( n = 24) yields an age of 465.4 +2.4/−3.1 Ma. Inherited zircons yield ages of c . 1120–1520, c . 1650–1914 and c . 2540–2890 Ma. The absence of zircons between c . 550 and 700 Ma argues against involvement of Avalonia as a source of inherited crystals. Overall, the inherited age spectra are characteristic of Laurentian crust or metasedimentary successions of peri-Laurentian provenance. These findings suggest that the Grangegeeth volcanic terrane does not represent a continuation of the intra-Iapetus Exploits arc of Newfoundland. Supplementary material: Full analytical protocols, applied data corrections, processing and plotting rationales and data table for zircon LA-MC-ICP-MS analysis are available at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/SUP18399 .

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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207