MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3158148322 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-8943

The subduction, exhumation, and deformation history of the Vaimok Lens, Seve Nappe Complex, Scandinavian Caledonides

2021· article· en· W3158148322 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Barnes, Jarosław Majka, David Schneider, Mattia Gilio, Matteo Alvaro, Michał Bukała, Matthijs A. Smit

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamorphismEclogiteGeologyNappeGeochemistrySubductionGeochronologyPetrologyTectonicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Seve Nappe Complex (SNC) of the Scandinavian Caledonides represents portions of the Baltican margin that were subducted to mantle depths. Eclogite-bearing sub-units of the SNC provide a record of this important step in orogen development. One such sub-unit is the Vaimok Lens of the SNC in southern Norrbotten. The Vaimok Lens constitutes eclogites hosted within metasedimentary rocks that reached ultra-high pressure (UHP) conditions in the Cambrian/Early Ordovician period. The metasedimentary rocks are typically composed of quartz, white mica, garnet, plagioclase, biotite, clinozoisite, apatite and titanite, and show a pervasive ‘S2’ foliation that developed during exhumation. Garnet is recognized as a relic of prograde metamorphism during subduction, whereas the other minerals represent retrogressive metamorphism during exhumation. To resolve the timing of prograde metamorphism, Lu-Hf geochronology was conducted on metasediment-hosted garnet that preserves prograde, bell-shaped Mn-zoning with a chemical formula of Alm69-59Grs32-24Sps13-2Prp5-2. The results indicate garnet growth at 495.3 ± 2.6 Ma. Quartz-in-garnet (QuiG) elastic geobarometry was also conducted on garnet from the same sample, providing pressures of 0.9-1.3 GPa, calculated at 500-700°C. Six samples were obtained for in-situ 40Ar/39Ar geochronology, targeting white mica defining the S2 foliation. Samples can be classified as: 1) low-strain (n: 3), with large (>400 µm width), undeformed micas that are chemically homogeneous (XCel: 0.24-0.35), which yielded a weighted average 40Ar/39Ar population of 470.5 ± 5.9 Ma; 2) high-strain (n: 3), with small (<300 µm width) mica fish with heterogeneous chemistry (XCel: 0.03-0.27), which provided weighted average 40Ar/39Ar populations of 447.6 ± 2.6 Ma and 431.1 ± 4.1 Ma. An additional sample from the basal thrust of the lens that contains large (>300 µm width), homogeneous (XCel: 0.24-0.34) mica was also dated, yielding a population of 414.1 ± 5.8 Ma. Altogether, the data indicates that the Vaimok Lens was subducting by c. 495 Ma. The lens underwent post-decompression cooling at c. 470 Ma, possibly decompressing to 0.9-1.3 GPa by this time. This would equate to an exhumation rate of 3-9 mm/yr. Imbrication of the SNC in southern Norrbotten is taken to be c. 447 Ma. Scandian deformation was active by c. 431 Ma and led to overthrusting of the SNC onto subjacent nappes by latest c. 414 Ma. Both the timescale for subduction and the rates of exhumation for the Vaimok Lens reflect subduction-exhumation dynamics of large UHP terranes. Furthermore, the timing of imbrication and Scandian deformation in southern Norrbotten is similar to estimates along strike of the SNC. These results indicate that the SNC acted as a large UHP terrane that underwent a ~25 Myr cycle of subduction and exhumation during the late Cambrian/Early Ordovician, before being deformed and partially dismembered in subsequent accretionary and collisional events. Research funded by National Science Centre (Poland) project no. 2014/14/E/ST10/00321 to J. Majka.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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