MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281574886 · doi:10.1144/jgs2014-056

Uranium–lead zircon systematics in the Sudbury impact crater-fill: implications for target lithologies and crater evolution

2015· article· en· W2281574886 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph A. Petrus, G. G. Kenny, J. A. Ayer, P. C. Lightfoot, Balz S. Kamber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpact craterZirconGeologyGeochemistryLithologySystematicsUraniumClastic rockImpact structurePetrologyMineralogySedimentary rockAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sudbury impact structure is one of only a few terrestrial impact craters capable of providing insight into large impact processes. However, despite more than a century of study, no consensus exists regarding its depths of excavation and melting. This study presents 3920 U–Pb zircon dates for target lithologies and the crater-fill as well as new Pb-isotope data for target lithologies in an attempt to further constrain these depths and understand the behaviour of zircon in large impacts. Only 1.5% of the crater-fill zircons have dates within uncertainty of the 1.85 Ga impact event, with most seeming to preserve their pre-impact U–Pb systematics. The preponderance of undisturbed zircon in the crater-fill suggests that this mineral is an effective means of tracing target lithologies in impact basins. A significant fraction of crater-fill zircon was dated between 2.50 and 2.61 Ga, which is negligible amongst known target lithologies, and therefore identifies previously unrecognized target rocks. The Pb-isotope systematics are compatible with the proposal that the 2.6 Ga rock represents typical mid- to lower-crustal basement and could have been an important contributor to the melt-sheet. The combined data argue against a shallow melting scenario. With regard to Hadean terrestrial zircon, the lesson from Sudbury is that zircon can be recycled through multiple large impact events and still preserve the age of the original crust. Supplementary materials: Sample information, trace element and Pb-isotope data for granitoid and gneiss feldspar, Pb modelling parameters, U–Pb zircon data, concordia diagrams and airborne radiometric images are available at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/SUP18881 .

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207