Monogenetic v. polygenetic kimberlite volcanism: in-depth examination of the Tango Extension Super Structure, Attawapiskat kimberlite field, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extensive drilling of the Tango Extension kimberlite pipe resulted in the construction of an emplacement model that revealed the complex architecture of two amalgamated pipes: an older pipe, the Tango Extension Deep, which is cut along its northern margin by the smaller Tango Extension pipe. The resulting volcano forms a complex pipe-in-pipe structure called the Tango Extension Super Structure. The emplacement of the Tango Extension Super Structure sequence indicates prolonged hiatuses, which, similar to other volcanoes classified as monogenetic, puts the classical monogenetic and polygenetic definitions of maar-diatreme volcanoes to the test. Although the Tango Extension and Tango Extension Deep volcanoes could be characterized individually as monogenetic volcanoes, the Tango Extension Super Structure shows evidence of the occurrence of the significant hiatuses typical of polygenetic volcanoes. We suggest that hiatuses that are long enough to consolidate earlier tephra unambiguously differentiate polygenetic from monogenetic maar-diatreme volcanoes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".