MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518255178 · doi:10.1130/g38024.1

Kimberlites and the start of plate tectonics

2016· article· en· W2518255178 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Stern, Matthew I. Leybourne, Tatsuki Tsujimori

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceGeologyTectonicsGeological surveySternKimberlitePlate tectonicsArchaeologyEarth scienceGeochemistryGeographySeismologyPaleontologyMantle (geology)Oceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We want to know when plate tectonics began and will consider any important Earth feature that shows significant temporal evolution. Kimberlites, the primary source of diamonds, are rare igneous features. We analyze their distribution throughout Earth history; most are young (∼95% are younger than 0.75 Ga), but rare examples are found as far back as the Archean (older than 2.5 Ga). Although there are differing explanations for this age asymmetry (lack of preservation, lack of exposure, fewer mantle plumes, or lack of old thick lithosphere in the Archean and Proterozoic), we suggest that kimberlite eruptions are a consequence of modern-style plate tectonics, in particular subduction of hydrated oceanic crust and sediments deep into the mantle. This recycling since the onset of modern-style plate tectonics ca. 1 Ga has massively increased mantle CO2 and H2O contents, leading to the rapid and explosive ascent of diamond-bearing kimberlite magmas. The age distribution of kimberlites, combined with other large-scale tectonic indicators that are prevalent only in the past ∼1 Ga (blueschists, glaucophane-bearing eclogites; coesite- or diamond-bearing ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic rocks; lawsonite-bearing metamorphic rocks; and jadeitites), indicates that plate tectonics, as observed today, has only operated for <25% of Earth history.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations133
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207