MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120386056

Heading down early on? Start of subduction on Earth

2014· article· en· W3120386056 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon Turner, Tracy Rushmer, Mark K. Reagan, Jean‐François Moyen

Bibliographic record

VenueEGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHadeanSubductionGeologyForearcArcheanCrustOceanic crustEarth scienceGeochemistryPlate tectonicsTectonicsStratigraphyPaleontologyEclogitization
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How the Earth’s earliest crust was formed and when present-day plate tectonics (i.e., subduction) and life commenced remain fundamental questions in Earth sciences. Whereas the bulk composition of the crust is similar to that of rocks generated in subduction settings, it does not necessarily follow that melting and crust formation require subduction. Many workers suggest that subduction may have only commenced toward the end of the Archean or later. Here we observe that both the stratigraphy and geochemistry of rocks found in Quebec, Canada, that have been variously argued to be 4.4 or 3.8 Ga in age, closely match those from the modern-day Izu-Bonin-Mariana forearc. We suggest that this geochemical stratigraphy might provide a more robust test of ancient tectonic setting than individual chemical or isotopic signatures in rocks or detrital minerals. If correct, the match suggests that at least some form of subduction may have been operating as early as the Hadean or Eoarchean. This could have provided an ideal location for the development of first life.

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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEGU General Assembly Conference AbstractsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207