MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2185336754 · doi:10.4095/213069

Geochemistry of basalt from the Wolverine volcanic-hosted massive-sulphide deposit, Finlayson Lake district, Yukon Territory

2002· report· en· W2185336754 on OpenAlexaffabout
S J Piercey, S J Paradis, Jan M. Peter, Terry L. Tucker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyBasaltGeochemistryVolcanic rockFelsicIncompatible elementIgneous rockMantle (geology)MetasomatismPartial meltingVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Massive basaltic flows stratigraphically overlie aphyric felsic rocks in the hanging wall of the Wolverine volcanic-hosted massive-sulphide deposit. The geochemical signatures of these flows are simi-lar to those of normal and enriched mid-ocean-ridge basalt; however, some have elevated Th contents simi-lar to back-arc-basin basalt. These features suggest that Wolverine basalt was derived from depleted to weakly enriched mantle sources with minor subduction-zone metasomatic input and/or a crustal component via crustal contamination. The presence of such rocks in close primary association and juxtaposition with crustally derived felsic volcanic rocks, together with their bulk compositions, indicate that the Wolverine deposit formed within an ensialic back-arc rift to nascent back-arc-basin setting. The flat heavy rare-earth-element signatures on chondrite-normalized plots require that the Wolverine basalt formed from low-pressure mantle melting (spinel stability field) with a minimal lithospheric cap.

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 score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→