MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525420533 · doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2016.09.007

Microwave paleointensities indicate a low paleomagnetic dipole moment at the Permo-Triassic boundary

2016· article· en· W2525420533 on OpenAlexafffund
Taslima Anwar, Louise Hawkins, Vadim A. Kravchinsky, Andrew J. Biggin, В. Е. Павлов

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of The Earth and Planetary Interiors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchRoyal Society
KeywordsPaleomagnetismGeologyFlood basaltThermoremanent magnetizationEarth's magnetic fieldNatural remanent magnetizationBasaltPermianIgneous rockPaleontologyGeophysicsMagnetostratigraphyLarge igneous provinceDipoleRemanenceTectonicsMagnetizationMagmatismMagnetic fieldStructural basinVolcanismPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quantity of igneous material comprising the Siberian Traps provides a uniquely excellent opportunity to constrain Earth’s paleomagnetic field intensity at the Permo-Triassic boundary. There remains however, a contradiction about the strength of the magnetic field that is exacerbated by the limited number of measurement data. To clarify the geomagnetic field behavior during this time period, for the first time, a microwave paleointensity study has been carried out on the Permo-Triassic flood basalts in order to complement existing datasets obtained using conventional thermal techniques. Samples, which have been dated at ∼250 Ma, of the Permo-Triassic trap basalts from the northern extrusive (Maymecha-Kotuy region) and the southeastern intrusive (areas of the Sytikanskaya and Yubileinaya kimberlite pipes) localities on the Siberian platform are investigated. These units have already demonstrated reliable paleomagnetic directions consistent with the retention of a primary remanence. Furthermore, Scanning Electron Microscope analysis confirms the presence of iron oxides likely of primary origin. Microwave Thellier-type paleointensity experiments (IZZI protocol with partial thermoremanent magnetization checks) are performed on 50 samples from 11 sites, of which, 28 samples from 7 sites provide satisfactory paleointensity data. The samples display corresponding distinct directional components, positive pTRM checks and little or no zig-zagging of the Arai or Zijderveld plot, providing evidence to support that the samples are not influenced by lab-induced alteration or multi-domain behavior. The accepted microwave paleointensity results from this study are combined with thermal Thellier-type results from previously published studies to obtain overall estimates for different regions of the Siberian Traps. The mean geomagnetic field intensity obtained from the samples of the northern part is 13.4 ± 12.7 μT (Maymecha-Kotuy region), whereas from the southeastern part is 17.3 ± 16.5 μT (Sytikanskaya kimberlite pipe) and 48.5 ± 7.3 μT (Yubileinaya kimberlite pipe), suggesting that the regional discrepancy is probably due to the insufficient sampling of geomagnetic secular variation, and thus, multiple localities need to be considered to obtain an accurate paleomagnetic dipole moment for this time period. It demonstrates that the overall mean paleointensity of the Siberian Traps is 19.5 ± 13.0 μT which corresponds to a mean virtual dipole moment of 3.2 ± 1.8 × 10 22 Am 2 . Results indicate that the average magnetic field intensity during Permo-Triassic boundary is significantly lower (by approximately 50%) than the present geomagnetic field intensity, and thus, it implies that the Mesozoic dipole low might extend 50 Myr further back in time than previously recognized.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of The Earth and Planetary InteriorsSame topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism StudiesFrench-language works237,207