MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3082353809 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10463

A Petrographic, Geochemical and Isotopic Study of the 780 Ma Gunbarrel Large Igneous Province, Western North America

2014· dissertation· en· W3082353809 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alana Mackinder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyMaficLarge igneous provinceGeochemistryMagmatismPetrographyRodiniaIgneous rockSillIsotope geochemistryVolcanic rockVolcanoIsotopePaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the western margin of North America lie dykes, sills and volcanic rocks which define a magmatic episode at 780 Ma.These units have been collectively termed the Gunbarrel Large Igneous Province (LIP) and share remarkably similar petrographical, geochemical and isotopic signatures indicating a single homogeneous source.The Irene and Huckleberry metavolcanic rocks of Washington State were correlated to the Gunbarrel LIP based on similar ages, but were found to not be related based on geochemistry and isotopic analysis.The timing of the Gunbarrel LIP coincides with the break-up of Rodinia, and Gunbarrel samples were compared to coeval magmatism from South China to test the "Missing Link" reconstruction model.While some mafic dykes have similar Nd isotopic ratios, no definitive correlations could be found between the different magmatic events.Finally, LIPs play a key role in housing various economic deposits and the Gunbarrel magmas show potential for being a Ni-Cu-PGE target.

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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→