MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pressure–temperature evolution of the late Hercynian Calabria continental crust: compatibility with post‐collisional extensional tectonics

2007· article· en· W2158178189 on OpenAlexaff
Alfredo Caggianelli, Domenico Liotta, Giacomo Prosser, G. Ranalli

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMassifCrustMetamorphic rockContinental crustTectonicsExtensional definitionGeochemistryExtensional tectonicsLithospherePetrologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The late Hercynian tectonic evolution of the Calabria crust is characterized by peak metamorphic conditions up to 800 °C and 1000 MPa, and coeval mid‐crustal granitoid emplacement at 304–300 Ma. To check if a post‐collisional extensional framework, similar to that of other Hercynian massifs, can explain petrologic data, we model the pressure–temperature evolution of the crust during extension following granitoid emplacement. Model parameters are constrained by petrologic, geochemical and structural data. Computed P–T paths are characterized by nearly isothermal decompression followed by isobaric cooling, which show a good fit to petrologic P–T paths for duration of extension between 5 and 10 Ma. The model results, therefore, support an interpretation of the magmatic and metamorphic evolution of the Calabria crust in terms of the late Hercynian extension. In this framework, slab break‐off is a reasonable explanation for the common evolution of the southern European Hercynian massifs.

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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207