MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129555785 · doi:10.1130/g24861a.1

Episodic, mafic crust formation from 4.5 to 2.8 Ga: New evidence from detrital zircons, Slave craton, Canada

2008· article· en· W2129555785 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Pietranik, Chris J. Hawkesworth, Craig Storey, Anthony I.S. Kemp, Keith Sircombe, Martin J. Whitehouse, Wouter Bleeker

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsQueen (butterfly)MaficCratonCrustGeologyArchaeologyHistoryLibrary scienceGeochemistryPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ϵHf and δ18O values in detrital zircons from the Slave craton, Canada, indicate three episodes of crust formation between ca. 4.5 and 2.8 Ga, namely at ca. 4.4–4.5 Ga, ca. 3.8 Ga, and ca. 3.4 Ga. Most of the juvenile crust appears to have been mafic in composition, and there is no clear evidence for initial granitic protocrust in the Hadean of the Slave craton. The range of initial ϵHf values in zircons increases from 3.9 to 2.8 Ga, indicating that both extraction of new material from mantle and reworking of the older crust are important for the secular evolution of the continental crust. A preliminary review of available Hf data in zircons suggests that the three episodes of crust generation may have been of global importance. The mafic crust formed in the Archean and the Hadean was then reworked for at least ~0.5–1.5 b.y., as indicated by data from the Slave craton, Gondwana, and the Limpopo Belt of Africa.

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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations162
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207