MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795042204 · doi:10.1144/sp470.11

Diachronous Paleozoic accretion of peri-Gondwanan terranes at the Laurentian margin

2018· article· en· W2795042204 on OpenAlexafffund
John W.F. Waldron, David I. Schofield, J. Brendan Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiachronousTerraneGeologyMargin (machine learning)PaleozoicAccretion (finance)PaleontologyEarth scienceTectonicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the original Wilson cycle, the northern Appalachian–Caledonide orogen resulted from the collision of two continental masses separated by a single ocean. One of these corresponds to the modern concept of Laurentia, but the colliding continent to the east has been variously subdivided into many smaller terranes and domains, including Ganderia, Avalonia and Megumia. Using published stratigraphic evidence and detrital zircon provenance data from units of known depositional age, the timing of arrival of these units at the Laurentian margin between the Early Ordovician and Early Devonian can be constrained. Several of the accreted terranes do not extend over the entire length of the orogen, with the result that the lines separating them change character along strike from terrane-bounding sutures to simple accretionary faults. The Ganderia domain consists of at least four separate terranes that share a common origin on the continental margin of Gondwana, but were separated by back-arc oceanic crust as they crossed the Iapetus Ocean and collided diachronously with the Laurentian margin.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1810.001

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 head0.215
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations55
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207