MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010032919 · doi:10.5800/gt-2019-10-4-0444

Enlargement of the area of the Timpton Large Igneous Province (ca. 1.75 ga) of the Siberian craton

2019· article· en· W3010032919 on OpenAlexaff
Д. П. Гладкочуб, Т. V. Donskaya, Richard E. Ernst, Ulf Söderlund, А. М. Мазукабзов, M. N. Shokhonova

Bibliographic record

VenueGeodynamics & Tectonophysics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSiberian Branch, Russian Academy of SciencesDivision of Ocean SciencesUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsCratonGeologyBaddeleyiteIgneous rockSwarm behaviourGeochemistryLarge igneous provincePaleontologyZirconMagmatismBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new geochronological data on dolerites from the Chaya dyke swarm of the Baikal inlier of the Siberian craton. The U‐Pb dating of baddeleyite from one dyke located at the SW end of the Chaya dyke swarm yielded an age of 1752±6 Ma, similar to the previously obtained age of a dyke in the NE end of this swarm. These ages estab‐ lish an age of 1752 Ma for a unified Chaya dyke swarm that extends for more than 200 km in the Baikal inlier of the Siberian craton. These new data confirm that the entire Chaya dyke swarm (as well as the Timpton‐Algamay and Eastern Anabar swarms) is a part of an overall radiating dyke swarm belonging to the Late Paleoproterozoic Timpton Large Igneous Province (LIP), the center of which is located in the middle section of the Vilyuy river flow. Thus, the LIP is enlarged to include the area further west in the Siberian craton.

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)0.000
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeodynamics & TectonophysicsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207