MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2143745478 · doi:10.1139/e02-901

A comparative <sup>40</sup>Ar/<sup>39</sup>Ar conventional and laserprobe study of muscovite from Port Mouton Pluton, southwest Nova Scotia: Erratum

2002· erratum· en· W2143745478 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Raymond Fallon, P. H. Reynolds, D. B. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2002
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlutonMuscoviteGeologyGeochemistryMonaziteNova scotiaZirconClosure temperatureOrogenyTerraneMetamorphic rockMineralogyPaleontologyTectonicsQuartz

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum and laserprobe data for primary magmatic or fluido-magmatic muscovite minerals from the Port Mouton pluton, one of several weakly peraluminous peripheral plutons in the Meguma terrane, southwestern Nova Scotia. Laserprobe data from the cores of thin grain fragments suggest that this pluton cooled rapidly following intrusion at 373 ± 1 Ma, the U–Pb monazite age. The rims of thicker more complete grains record ages of 315–325 Ma, even in cases where there have been no apparent changes in grain rim chemistry and where deformation is minimal. The observed age gradients may be the result of prolonged reheating during the Late Carboniferous Alleghanian Orogeny or, alternatively, the result of rapid cooling at this time to temperatures below the closure value for muscovite rims. Conventional age spectra obtained from muscovite separates record neither the older intrusion age nor the younger reset–cooling age. Instead, these intermediate ages appear to reflect the averaging of int...

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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