MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rodinia connections between Australia and Laurentia: no SWEAT, no AUSWUS?

2002· article· en· W2124915259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M.T.D. Wingate, Sergei Pisarevsky, David A.D. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRodiniaLaurentiaSupercontinentGeologyPaleontologyPaleomagnetismSillMaficCratonOrdovicianTectonicsGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although geological comparisons between Australia and North America have provided a basis for various Neoproterozoic Rodinia reconstructions, quantitative support from precisely dated palaeomagnetic poles has so far been lacking. We report U–Pb ages and palaeomagnetic results for two suites of mafic sills within the intracratonic Bangemall Basin of Western Australia, one of which is dated at 1070 ± 6 Ma and carries a high‐stability palaeomagnetic remanence. Comparison of the Bangemall palaeopole with Laurentian data suggests that previous reconstructions of eastern Australia against either western Canada (SWEAT) or the western United States (AUSWUS) are not viable at 1070 Ma. This implies that the Pacific Ocean did not form by separation of Australia–Antarctica from Laurentia, and that up to 10 000 km of late Neoproterozoic passive margins need to be matched with other continental blocks within any proposed Rodinia supercontinent. Our results permit a reconstruction (AUSMEX) that closely aligns late Mesoproterozoic orogenic belts in north‐east Australia and southernmost Laurentia.

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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations250
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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