MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891891836

A preliminary investigation of the igneous origins of the Montney and Doig formations: Integrating igneous geochemistry techniques for interpreting sedimentary provenance

2018· article· en· W2891891836 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Natasha Morris, Michèle Asgar-Deen, David Gardner, Chad Glemser

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryFelsicIgneous rockZirconProvenanceUltramafic rockPetrogenesisMaficPetrologyBasalt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well documented through sedimentological and zircon provenance studies that the bulk of the Montney sediment is sourced from the eastern North American Craton (NAC), consisting of highly felsic and heavily fractionated crustal rocks. This study presents the application of immobile element ratio diagrams to understand igneous and tectonic source terrains of the NAC sediments that source the Montney and Doig formations. Igneous rock plots, and tectonic discriminant diagrams, display Montney and Doig samples as rhyodacite-dacite with syn-collisional granitoid and volcanic arc signatures. Aluminum oxide and Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt (MORB) normalized plots, which contain an array of elements including rare earth elements (REE) along with major oxides, show the Montney and Doig formations to have similar trends to calc-alkaline basalts, meaning highly felsic with a likelihood of crustal contamination. The Montney and Doig formation samples all show similar geochemical trends; however differences in Y and Yb trends suggest the Doig source samples were exposed to greater degrees of potential garnet, clinopyroxene or biotite fractionation, this trend displays more mafic-ultramafic influences. These mafic-ultramafic trends were not exhibited in the Montney Formation samples.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum GeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207