MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894833886 · doi:10.1051/bsgf/2018014

Tectonics-mineralisation relationships within weak continental lithospheres: a new structural framework for Precambrian cratons

2018· article· en· W2894833886 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Denis Gapais

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin de la Société Géologique de France · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIAMGOLDCanadian Natural Resources LimitedAreva
KeywordsCratonPrecambrianGeologyTectonicsArcheanEarth sciencePaleontologyDeformation (meteorology)GeochemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many Archaean and Paleoproterozoic cratons show deformation patterns that differ from those observed in modern orogens. On the other hand, they constitute an important part of present-day emerged continents and contain a large part of continental mineral resources known to date. On the basis of a summary of structural data from some typical field examples and of results of analogue modelling, we emphasize that pop-down tectonics marked by vertical burial of supracrustals within an underlying hot and weak crust may be the most suitable model to account for deformation patterns of many ancient deformation zones. An overview of relationships between structural patterns and mineralisation in several ancient deformation zones further emphasizes that pop-down tectonics provides a very promising structural framework for mining exploration in Precambrian cratons.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin de la Société Géologique de FranceSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207