A tale of two orogens: Crustal processes in the Proterozoic Trans‐Hudson and Grenville Orogens, eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Precambrian core of North America was assembled in the Proterozoic by a series of collisions between Archean cratons. Among the orogenic belts, two stand out due to their significant spatial extent. The Paleoproterozoic Trans‐Hudson Orogen (THO) and Mesoproterozoic Grenville Orogen extend for thousands of kilometers along strike and hundreds of kilometers across strike. Both have been compared to the present‐day Himalayan‐Karakoram‐Tibetan Orogen (HKTO). Over the last 20–30 years, active and passive source seismic studies have contributed a wealth of information about the present‐day crustal structure and composition of the two orogens in Canada. The Proterozoic orogenic crust is generally thicker than that of neighboring Archean terranes, with a more variable Moho character, ranging from relatively sharp to highly diffuse. Both orogens have a prominent high‐velocity lower crustal layer, consistent with long‐term preservation of a partially eclogitized root at the base of the crust and similar to that inferred beneath the western HKTO. Crustal structure in the northern THO strongly resembles the lower crustal structure of the HKTO, suggesting that Moho depths may have reached 60–70 km when the orogen was active. A prominent midcrustal discontinuity beneath the central Grenville Province and changes in the patterns of seismic anisotropy in the THO crust beneath Hudson Bay provide geophysical evidence that lower crustal flow likely played a role in the evolution of both orogens, similar to that inferred beneath the present‐day HKTO. The seismic evidence from Canada supports the notion of tectonic uniformitarianism, at least as far back as the Paleoproterozoic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".