MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129777455 · doi:10.1139/e02-089

Kimberlites from the Wawa area, Ontario

2002· article· en· W2129777455 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Felix V. Kaminsky, S. M. Sablukov, L Sablukova, V. S. Shchukin, Dante Canil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaStornoway Diamond (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteGeologyEnstatiteGeochemistryPyropeXenolithOlivineAugiteIlmeniteMantle (geology)DiopsideEclogiteMineralogyMeteoritePlagioclaseSubductionChondrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two newly discovered kimberlites from the Wawa area, Ontario, are Group-1 kimberlites in their petrographic, mineralogical, geochemical, and isotopic features. They contain mantle minerals and xenoliths of the Fe–Ti-association (magnesian ilmenite, iron-rich olivine, orange Ti-pyrope garnet, augite, and ferroan enstatite) and of the Cr-association (chromian spinel, forsteritic olivine, purple Cr-pyrope garnets, chromian diopside, and enstatite); minerals of Fe–Ti-association are much more abundant. Minerals of eclogitic association are absent. Both G-10 pyrope garnets and high Cr spinels typically associated with diamond are represented in the Cr-association. The average age of the kimberlites is 1097 ± 7 Ma; i.e., contemporaneous with other alkaline igneous rocks in the Wawa area. Equilibration pressures and temperatures of mantle xenoliths plot close to a 40–45 mW m–2 geotherm. On the basis of the Ni-in-garnet geothermometer, garnets from the Wawa kimberlites equilibrated at 800–1350°C, and at least in part within the diamond stability field. It is likely that kimberlitic magma was derived from light rare earth-element-enriched asthenospheric mantle.

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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207