Ophiolite obduction in the Quebec Appalachians, Canada — <sup>40</sup>Ar/<sup>39</sup>Ar age constraints and evidence for syn-tectonic erosion and sedimentation<sup>1</sup>Geological Survey of Canada Contribution 20100430.<sup>2</sup>GEOTOP (Centre de recherche en géochimie et géodynamique) Contribution 2011-0002.<sup>3</sup>This article is one of a series of papers published in this <i>CJES Special Issue: In honour of Ward Neale</i> on the theme of Appalachian and Grenvillian geology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed field work conducted in the Dunnage zone of the Quebec Appalachians, is herein combined with 40Ar/39Ar dating on a series of ophiolitic massifs, crosscutting granites, and associated metamorphic rocks occurring along the Baie Verte–Brompton line, the Taconian suture between Laurentia and Lower Paleozoic peri-Laurentian oceanic terranes. Studied massifs are the Lac-Brompton ophiolite and the Rivière-des-Plante Ultramafic Complex in southern Quebec, and the Nadeau Ophiolitic Mélange in the Gaspé Peninsula. Our work suggests that these massifs form remnants of eroded ophiolitic nappes, which are unconformably overlain by the Saint-Daniel and Rivière-Port-Daniel mélanges, and correlate with the Thetford-Mines and Mont-Albert ophiolitic complexes. Our 40Ar/39Ar data and compiled regional age constraints indicate that ophiolite obduction was diachronous along the strike of the orogen. The timing of obduction and mélange formation varies according to the irregular geometry of the Early Paleozoic Laurentian margin, with earlier collision occurring along, or at the margins of promontories. Obduction was initiated with the formation of infraophiolitic metamorphic soles between ca. 479 and 472 Ma in southern Quebec and the Nadeau Ophiolitic Mélange, and possibly as late as ca. 470–466 Ma for the Mont-Albert Complex. These sole rocks were later exhumed and translated onto the Laurentian margin with the overlying ophiolites between 475 and 460–457 Ma. The uplifting and erosion of the orogenic wedge during the waning stages of obduction, has resulted in the sedimentation of olistostromal mélanges and onlapping flysch units above the ophiolitic nappes, as well as foredeep flysch successions during the latest Arenig(?) to earliest Caradoc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".