MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083140005 · doi:10.1130/g47745.1

Reconstructing crustal thickness evolution from europium anomalies in detrital zircons

2020· article· en· W3083140005 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Tang, Wei‐Qiang Ji, Xu Chu, Wu Anbin, Chen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyZirconFelsicGeochemistryThickeningPetrologyMafic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new data compilation shows that in intermediate to felsic rocks, zircon Eu/Eu* [chondrite normalized Eu/ ] correlates with whole rock La/Yb, which has been be used to infer crustal thickness. The resultant positive correlation between zircon Eu/Eu* and crustal thickness can be explained by two processes favored during high-pressure differentiation: (1) supression of plagioclase and (2) endogenic oxidation of Eu2+ due to garnet fractionation. Here we calibrate a crustal thickness proxy based on Eu anomalies in zircons. The Eu/Eu*-in-zircon proxy makes it possible to reconstruct crustal thickness evolution in magmatic arcs and orogens using detrital zircons. To evaluate this new proxy, we analyzed detrital zircons separated from modern river sands in the Gangdese belt, southern Tibet. Our results reveal two episodes of crustal thickening (to 60–70 km) since the Cretaceous. The first thickening event occurred at 90–70 Ma, and the second at 50–30 Ma following Eurasia-India collision. These findings are temporally consistent with contractional deformation of sedimentary strata in southern Tibet.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations327
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207