Protracted volcanism after large impacts: Evidence from the Sudbury impact basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Morphological studies of large impact structures on Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the Moon suggest that volcanism within impact craters may not be confined to the shock melting of target rocks. This possibility prompted reinvestigation of the 1.85 Ga subaqueous Sudbury impact structure, specifically its 1.5 km thick immediate basin fill (Onaping Formation). Historically, breccias of this formation were debated in the context of an endogenic versus an impact‐fallback origin. New field, petrographic, and in situ geochemical data document an array of igneous features, including vitric shards, bombs, sheet‐like intrusions, and peperites, preserved in exquisite textural detail. The geochemistry of vitric materials is affected by alteration, as expected for subaqueous magmatic products. Earlier studies proposed an overall andesitic chemistry for all magmatic products, sourced from the underlying impact melt sheet. The new data, however, suggest progressive involvement of an additional, more magnesian, and volatile‐rich magma source with time. We propose a new working model in which only the lower part of the Onaping Formation was derived by explosive “melt‐fuel‐coolant interaction” when seawater flooded onto the impact melt sheet in the basin floor. By contrast, we suggest that the upper 1000 m were deposited during protracted submarine volcanism and sedimentary reworking. Magma was initially sourced from the impact melt sheet and up stratigraphy, from reservoirs at greater depth. It follows that volcanic deposits in large impact basins may be related to magmatism caused by the impact but not directly associated with the impact‐generated melt sheet.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".