Bibliographic record
Abstract
The statistical analysis of geochronological data (more than 14200 dates) has been carried out by using the method of the probabilistic description of summary information on the crust and mantle and separately on both of the Earth’s upper shells considered together over the whole geological history. Various lines of evidence are presented for the necessity of using the whole set of geochronological methods to reveal any systematic pattern in the evolution of crust formation and to demonstrate the uselessness of utilizing selected data obtained by any one of the methods because of the limited analytical capability of each of them. These constraints, together with compositional variations of the dated rocks and the variable amount of the initial information, lead to uncertainty in estimation of megacyclicity as a sum of contrasting dynamics of endogenic events occurring in the crust and the mantle. It has been shown that mantle processes become more intense during periods of the synchronous activation of endogenic events in both shells; mantle activity sharply decreases in the epochs when endogenic processes in these shells are waning. This difference may serve as an objective criterion for estimating the maximum duration of cycles of mantle activity, which is distinct in the Early-Middle Archean, Late Archean-Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic. These conclusions are supported by examples of geochronological systematics for cratons of northeastern Labrador, western Greenland, and western Australia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".