MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910779903 · doi:10.4095/225179

Bedrock geology of southwestern Baffin Island, Nunavut: expanding the tectonostratigraphic framework with relevance to mineral resources

2008· report· en· W2910779903 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Sanborn-Barrie, M R St-Onge, Mike Young, D T James

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedrockGeologyRelevance (law)Mineral resource classificationEarth scienceArchaeologyPaleontologyGeographyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New bedrock geological mapping on southwestern Baffi n Island has highlighted the character and extent of three distinct supracrustal sequences and allowed for further subdivision and structural mapping of intervening plutonic rocks. The Lake Harbour Group outcrops predominantly south of Mingo Lake and comprises a quartzite-marble-psammite-pelite succession that can be traced southeast to its type locality near Kimmirut. Widespread exposures of carbonate-clastic rocks across Foxe Peninsula are also believed to represent Lake Harbour Group. Two stratigraphically distinct sequences, an arenaceous assemblage (Lona Bay sequence) and a gossanous mafi c-ultramafi c volcanic-bearing assemblage (Schooner Harbour sequence), are best exposed on southern Foxe Peninsula. Intervening plutonic rocks comprise mainly biotite- and/or orthopyroxene-monzogranite intrusive into the supracrustal rocks, with minor foliated to gneissic tonalite-granodiorite potentially representing depositional basement. Collectively, these rocks were deformed during at least three regional deformation events. As a result, supracrustal rocks are mainly preserved in structural basins corresponding to F1 and F2 synforms which, in turn, are separated by a broad F3 antiform.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207