Discussion on ‘The sole of an ophiolite: the Ordovician Bay of Islands Complex, Newfoundland’ <i>Journal</i> , 170, 2013, pp. 715–722
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dewey & Casey (2013) present a model for generation of the Bay of Islands Complex and its metamorphic sole that is anchored on intra-oceanic subduction initiation at a ridge–transform boundary. Several aspects of this model are inconsistent with a wealth of geological relationships and cannot readily accommodate the geological complexity of associated units in Newfoundland. Their model presents an alternative to the models of Waldron & van Staal (2001) and van Staal et al . (2007, 2013), which propose formation of the Baie Verte oceanic tract, including the Bay of Island Complex, after a Late Cambrian collision between an oceanic arc (Lushs Bight oceanic tract) and the Dashwoods microcontinent. In these models, the Baie Verte oceanic tract formed following subduction initiation in the seaway trapped between the Laurentian margin and the Dashwoods microcontinent. This subduction generated the continental Notre Dame Arc. Herein, we address some aspects of the Dewey & Casey (2013) model and discuss its tectonic implications. The model of intra-oceanic subduction initiation conflicts with the observation that the c . 489–485 Ma Baie Verte oceanic tract formed coevally with formation of the first phase ( c . 490–476 Ma) of the continental Notre Dame Arc (Dube et al . 1996; van Staal et al . 2007; Table 1). In addition, the Baie Verte oceanic tract formation was preceded by a slightly older arc ( c . 510–500 Ma Lushs Bight oceanic tract) that collided with the Dashwoods microcontinent (≥493 Ma; see below). The relationships to the older arc and its accretion to Dashwoods are crucial to understanding the formation of the Baie Verte oceanic tract, because the Bay of Islands Complex, at least in part, spread within rocks generally assigned to the Lushs Bight oceanic tract (e.g. Kurth et al . 1998), indicating that ophiolite formation …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".