MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921775995 · doi:10.1111/ter.12383

New constraints on carbonation associated with brecciation in hyperextended margins (example of Iberia and Newfoundland margins)

2019· article· en· W2921775995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzanne Picazo, Romain Lafay, Vincent Faucheux, Torsten Vennemann

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryCarbonationCarbonateLithologySedimentary rockBrecciaDiagenesisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The sequestration of CO2 occurs naturally in (ultra)‐mafic rocks by carbonation processes and is commonly noted in areas of the seafloor where mantle lithologies are exhumed. As well as carbonation, mantle exhumation is also responsible for rock brecciation. The relationship between carbonation and brecciation is not well constrained. A temporal evolution from syn‐ to post‐tectonic carbonation and brecciation is proposed in line with progressive mantle exhumation. Using a petrological study of brecciated material from IODP drill cores of the Iberia–Newfoundland conjugated margins, we relate crack–seal veins to tectonic brecciation, authigenic calcite with scalenohedral structure to hydraulic brecciation and reworked clasts within cement to (tectono)‐sedimentary processes. Oxygen isotope compositions reveal late‐staged < 50°C carbonate generation in the proximal part of the ocean–continent transition, which have followed an earlier phase of sub‐seafloor carbonate generation. The results are crucial to understand CO2 exchange within the reworked sub‐seafloor in passive margins and oceanic systems.

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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207