MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002276122 · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2020.01.025

40Ar/39Ar systematics of melt lithologies and target rocks from the Gow Lake impact structure, Canada

2020· article· en· W3002276122 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. E. Pickersgill, Darren F. Mark, Martin Lee, G. R. Osinski

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Glasgow
KeywordsImpact structureGeologyImpact craterGeochronologyIsochronSilicicLithologyIsotopes of argonSystematicsThermal diffusivityPaleontologyMineralogyGeochemistryIsotopeNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The age of the Gow Lake impact structure (Saskatchewan, Canada) is poorly constrained, with previous estimates ranging from 100 to 250 Ma. Using a combination of step-heating and UV laser in situ 40Ar/39Ar analyses we have sought to understand the 40Ar/39Ar systematics of this small impact crater and obtain a more precise and accurate age. This structure is challenging for 40Ar/39Ar geochronology due to its small size (∼5 km diameter), the silicic composition of the target rock, and the large difference in age between the impact event and the target rock (∼1.2 Ga). These factors can serve to inhibit argon mobility in impact melts, leading to retention of ‘extraneous’ 40Ar and anomalously older measured ages. We mitigated the undesirable effects of extraneous 40Ar retention by analysing small volume aliquots of impact glass using step-heating and even smaller volumes via the UV laser in situ 40Ar/39Ar technique. Although primary hydration of impact-generated glasses enhanced the diffusivity of 40Ar inherited from silica-rich melts, data still had to be corrected for extraneous 40Ar by using isotope correlation plots to define the initial trapped 40Ar/36Ar components. Our inverse isochron age of 196.8 ± 9.6/9.9 Ma (2σ, analytical/external precision) demonstrates that the Gow Lake event occurred within uncertainty of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, but there is no evidence that it was part of an impact cluster.

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 score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochimica et Cosmochimica ActaSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207