MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992642828 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13547-x

No evidence for high-pressure melting of Earth’s crust in the Archean

2019· article· en· W2992642828 on OpenAlexaff
R.H. Smithies, Yongjun Lu, Tim Johnson, Christopher L. Kirkland, K.F. Cassidy, D.C. Champion, David R. Mole, I. Zibra, Klaus Gessner, Jyotindra Sapkota, M. C. De Paoli, Marc Poujol

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersCentre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems, Australian Research CouncilGovernment of Western AustraliaState Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral ResourcesChina University of GeosciencesCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationAustralian Government
KeywordsArcheanCrustContinental crustGeologyMaficGeochemistryMantle (geology)BasaltPartial meltingLithospherePetrologyOceanic crustTectonicsSubductionPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the present-day volume of Earth's continental crust had formed by the end of the Archean Eon, 2.5 billion years ago, through the conversion of basaltic (mafic) crust into sodic granite of tonalite, trondhjemite and granodiorite (TTG) composition. Distinctive chemical signatures in a small proportion of these rocks, the so-called high-pressure TTG, are interpreted to indicate partial melting of hydrated crust at pressures above 1.5 GPa (>50 km depth), pressures typically not reached in post-Archean continental crust. These interpretations significantly influence views on early crustal evolution and the onset of plate tectonics. Here we show that high-pressure TTG did not form through melting of crust, but through fractionation of melts derived from metasomatically enriched lithospheric mantle. Although the remaining, and dominant, group of Archean TTG did form through melting of hydrated mafic crust, there is no evidence that this occurred at depths significantly greater than the ~40 km average thickness of modern continental crust.

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)0.001
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations166
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207