MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908727216 · doi:10.4095/213620

In situ SHRIMP U-Pb geochronology of Barrovian facies-series metasedimentary rocks in the Happy lake and Josephine River supracustal belts: implications for the Paleoproterozoic architecture of the northern Hearne domain, Nunavut; Radiogenic Age and Isotopic Studies: Report15

2002· report· en· W2908727216 on OpenAlexaffabout
R G Berman, W J Davis, L B Aspler, Jeffrey R. Chiarenzelli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeochronologyGeologyShrimpFaciesSeries (stratigraphy)GeochemistryArchitecturePaleontologyArchaeologyGeographyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe (SHRIMP) U-Pb dates on in situ monazite grains areinterpreted to yield an age of 1886 " 6 Ma for the approximately 6 kbar metamorphism and associated S2shortening within kyanite-bearing metapelitic rocks of the Josephine River supracrustal belt. These datademonstrate that mid-crustal shortening accompanied ca. 1.9 Ga, greater than 10 kbar metamorphism previously documented in the adjacent northwestern Hearne domain. In situ SHRIMP U-Pb monazite ages for kyanite-bearing metasedimentary rocks near Happy lake,metamorphosed at approximately 6 kbar, form a single 1835 " 11 Ma population. An apparent correlationbetween monazite ages and textural locations, however, is interpreted to yield 1850 " 18 Ma for the age ofBarrovian metamorphism and associated S1 or S2 fabric (textural ambiguity remains), and 1826 " 15 Ma for theage of S3 staurolite. It is suggested here that the greater than 1850 Ma, S1 fabric is associated with a regionallyimportant shear zone that carried the central Hearne domain northward over the northwestern Hearne domain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207