MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089014179 · doi:10.1130/g47823.1

Paleomagnetic constraints on the duration of the Australia-Laurentia connection in the core of the Nuna supercontinent

2020· article· en· W3089014179 on OpenAlexafffund
Uwe Kirscher, Ross N. Mitchell, Yebo Liu, Adam Nordsvan, Grant M. Cox, Sergei Pisarevsky, Chong Wang, Lei Wu, J. Brendan Murphy, Zheng‐Xiang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersCentre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems, Australian Research CouncilInstitute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCurtin University of TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsLaurentiaSupercontinentRodiniaPaleomagnetismGeologyPaleontologyApparent polar wanderSillCratonEarth scienceOrdovicianGeochemistryTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Australia-Laurentia connection in the Paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic supercontinent Nuna is thought to have initiated by ca. 1.6 Ga when both continents were locked in a proto-SWEAT (southwestern U.S.–East Antarctic) configuration. However, the longevity of that configuration is poorly constrained. Here, we present a new high-quality paleomagnetic pole from the ca. 1.3 Ga Derim Derim sills of northern Australia that suggests Australia and Laurentia were in the same configuration at that time. This new paleopole also supports a connection between Australia and North China and, in conjunction with previously reported data from all continents, indicates that the breakup of Nuna largely occurred between ca. 1.3 and 1.2 Ga.

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)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations112
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207