MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171669394 · doi:10.1093/petrology/egm041

Origins of Xenolithic Eclogites and Pyroxenites from the Central Slave Craton, Canada

2007· article· en· W2171669394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonja Aulbach, Norman J. Pearson, Suzanne Y. O’Reilly, Buddy Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petrology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclogiteProtolithGeochemistryGeologyPlagioclaseXenolithTrace elementCratonMetasomatismArcheanIncompatible elementKimberlitePartial meltingMantle (geology)ZirconPetrologySubductionTectonicsQuartzPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major- and trace-element and Sr^Nd^Hf isotopic compositions of garnet and clinopyroxene in kimberlite-borne eclogite and pyroxe-nite xenoliths were used to establish their origins and evolution in the subcontinental lithospheric mantle beneath the central Slave Craton, Canada. The majority of eclogites can be assigned to three groups (high-Mg, high-Ca or low-Mg eclogites) that have distinct trace-element patterns. Although post-formation metasomatism involving high field strength element (HFSE) and light rare earth element (LREE) addition has partially obscured the primary compositional features of the high-Mg and high-Ca eclo-gites, trace-element features, such as unfractionated middle REE (MREE) to heavy REE (HREE) patterns suggestive of garnet-free residues and low Zr/Sm consistent with plagioclase accu-mulation, could indicate a subduction origin from a broadly gabbroic protolith. In this scenario, the low

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations109
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PetrologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207