MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908521671 · doi:10.4095/212672

U-Pb baddeleyite age for the Paleoproterozoic Lac Esprit dyke swarm, James Bay region, Quebec; Radiogenic age and isotopic studies: Report 14

2001· report· en· W2908521671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael A. Hamilton, J Goutier, W. A. Matthews

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaddeleyiteRadiogenic nuclideGeochemistryGeologyBayOceanographyMantle (geology)Zircon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geological mapping east of James Bay has revealed abundant, newly recognized north- to northwest- and northeast-trending Proterozoic diabase dykes in a part of the eastern Superior Province where information was previously scant. A magmatic crystallization age of 2069 ± 1 Ma (U-Pb, baddeleyite) was reported for a representative of the north- to northwest-trending Lac Esprit swarm, distinguishing it from similar- trending but older Matachewan and Mistassini dykes of the region. The Lac Esprit dykes represent an extensive diabase swarm with a Paleoproterozoic age so far unrecognized elsewhere in the eastern Superior Province. The age, together with published preliminary paleomagnetic results, invites comparisons with a postulated, regionally extensive, radiating swarm north of Lake Superior (Fort Frances and reversely magnetized Marathon dykes), among others. The new dyke age contributes information to dyke swarm correlations in the Superior Craton and also aids in the assessment of models promoting apparent polar wander and continental drift of Laurentia during the Paleoproterozoic, or block rotation since this time.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207