MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2125251532 · doi:10.1139/e09-016

Paleomagnetic dating of the northern Alberta kimberlites

2009· article· en· W2125251532 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Vadim A. Kravchinsky, D. Roy Eccles, Rui Zhang, M. J. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGeological Survey of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPaleomagnetismKimberliteGeologyCenozoicMesozoicPaleontologyAbsolute datingApparent polar wanderUltramafic rockRadiogenic nuclideGeochronologyGeochemistryRadiocarbon datingMantle (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the vast amount of economic interest diamonds have created in northern Alberta, there is a need to produce an accurate geological model for the northern Alberta kimberlite province. To aid in the development of such a model, the emplacement ages of two kimberlite occurrences, K5 and K6 from the Buffalo Head Hills region of north-central Alberta, and the ultramafic Mountain Lake body from northwestern Alberta were estimated using paleomagnetic methods. Paleomagnetic poles obtained in our study do not differ statistically from the reference poles for late Mesozoic – Cenozoic for North America ( Besse and Courtillot 2002 ). With the aid of polarity determinations, palynology, and radiogenic dating, the paleomagnetic results allow for new constraints on the emplacement age of the selected ultramafic occurrences. The paleomagnetic emplacement ages established for the K5, K6, and Mountain Lake bodies are 90–83 Ma, 83.0–79.1 Ma, and not older than 79.1 Ma, respectively.

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)0.001
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→