MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2790390946 · doi:10.4095/306604

Using basalt-hosted xenoliths as probes of the composition, structure and rheology of the sub-Cordilleran lithosphere in British Columbia

2018· report· en· W2790390946 on OpenAlexaffabout
R K Kroner, J B Chapman, J K Russell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasaltLithosphereGeologyXenolithComposition (language)RheologyGeochemistryPetrologyPaleontologyTectonicsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study seeks to illuminate the chemistry, structure, and rheology of the crustal and mantle lithosphere beneath the Canadian Cordillera using crustal and mantle xenoliths entrained in Quaternary to early Paleogene mafic volcanics. Most of the xenolith-bearing units belong to the Chilcotin Group basalts in southern British Columbia and fall within the Quesnel and Stikine accreted terranes. The sampling locations of Summit Lake north of Prince George, Lightning Peak in the Okanagan region and Mt. Timothy east of Lac la Hache were selected for the diversity of entrained xenoliths. Ultramafic mantle xenoliths include multiple types of peridotite, with lherzolite the most abundant in all locations. Crustal xenoliths include gabbro, granitoid, granulite and quartzite. Pressure and depths of equilibration for the samples will be determined by microprobe analyses of various minerals in the xenoliths. This will be the first step toward creating a comprehensive petrological cross section of the southern Cordilleran lithosphere.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→