MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794931309 · doi:10.20381/ruor-21619

(U-Th)/He Thermochronology of the Aishihik Batholith, Central Yukon: Evidence for Stable Crust in the Cretaceous

2018· dissertation· en· W2794931309 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Meghan Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsThermochronologyBatholithCretaceousGeologyCrustPaleontologyEarth scienceZirconTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 190-180 Ma Aishihik batholith is located in southcentral Yukon in the North American Cordillera. Low-temperature (U-Th)/He thermochronology is used to assess the thermal history of the batholith and the surrounding host rock to provide an understanding of the Jurassic-Cretaceous tectonism. The Yukon Tanana terrane (YTT) shows a steady cooling of ~5°C/m.y from the Early Jurassic to the Late Cretaceous, when it reaches the surface. Sections of YTT adjacent to the batholith exhibits moderate cooling rates of 7°C/m.y from the Early to Late Jurassic and then slows down to 1.5°C/m.y until reaching the surface in the Late Cretaceous. The batholith itself exhibits relatively fast cooling from the Early to Late Jurassic (15°C/m.y) and then slows down (1.5°C/m.y) until it reaches surface conditions in the Late Cretaceous. All rocks are at the surface at the latest by the Late Cretaceous with no evidence that there were any subsequent substantial thermal events, which indicates that the Yukon has a mature landscape compared to the rest of the North American Cordillera.

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 score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207