MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2782552157 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2017-0176

Tectonostratigraphic and petrogenetic setting of late Mississippian volcanism in eastern Canada

2018· article· en· W2782552157 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Pierre Jutras, J. Dostál, Sandra L. Kamo, Zachary Matheson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSaint Mary's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyVolcanismGeochemistryPaleontologyEarth scienceTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the aftermath of the Middle Devonian Acadian Orogeny, a thick mafic body is inferred to have been emplaced at the base of the crust during development of the Maritimes Basin complex in eastern Canada and is believed to have sourced regional Late Devonian to Mississippian volcanism. By late Mississippian times, volcanism was limited to central New Brunswick and the Magdalen Islands of eastern Quebec. Whereas Late Devonian to early Mississippian mafic volcanism was mainly characterized by subalkaline lavas produced by the high-degree partial melting of a subduction-enriched lithospheric mantle source, late Mississippian volcanism was dominated by alkali mafic lavas produced by the low-degree partial melting of a sublithospheric mantle source that shows no evidence of subduction imprint. Two distinct upper Mississippian volcanic successions were identified in central New Brunswick and are estimated to be separated by ∼7 million years based on U–Pb dates on felsic intervals. They respectively belong to the Cumberland Hill Formation and a new volcanic member of the Hopewell Cape Formation. As they share close geochemical affinities, we interpret both volcanic units as having been derived from the same primary source but from distinct magmatic pulses. Based on the sedimentology of interbedded clastic units as well as available mapping and geophysical data in New Brunswick, we interpret that the upper Mississippian mafic lavas were issued from large NW–SE striking dykes responding to NW–SE compression in a pull-apart basin, whereas less voluminous and more localised felsic rocks were possibly issued from discrete volcanic pipes.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→