MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767627061 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2017-0146

The Pele Offset Dykes, Sudbury impact structure, Canada

2017· article· en· W2767627061 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
E. Pilles, G. R. Osinski, R. A. F. Grieve, Adam B. Coulter, D. Smith, Joshua Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWallbridge Mining (Canada)Western University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsGeologyIgneous rockGeochemistryLithologyArcheanElectron microprobePetrologyMineralogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Offset Dykes are impact melt-bearing dykes related to the 1.85 Ga Sudbury impact structure. Currently, the dykes extend radially outward from—or occur concentrically around—the Sudbury Igneous Complex, which is the remnant of a differentiated impact melt sheet and the source of the dykes. The recently identified three Pele Offset Dykes intrude into the Archean rocks north of the Sudbury Igneous Complex. In this study, the Pele dykes are characterized for the first time by a combination of fieldwork, optical microscopy, electron microprobe analyses, and bulk geochemical analyses. The Pele Offset Dykes stand out from the other Offset Dykes at Sudbury in two significant ways: (i) All other known Offset Dykes consist of an inclusion-rich lithology in the center of the dyke and an inclusion-poor lithology along the margins. The Pele dykes, however, are only composed of the inclusion-poor phase. (ii) The Pele dykes—particularly the Central and Eastern dykes—have a more evolved chemical composition relative to the other Offset Dykes. These observations suggest that the Pele dykes were emplaced after the other known Offset Dykes during two injection events: the Western followed by the Central and Eastern Pele dykes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207