MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168202294 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-12230

Contrasting styles of magmatism and rifting in the High Arctic LIP, Sverdrup Basin, Canadian Arctic

2021· article· en· W3168202294 on OpenAlexaffabout
M -C Williamson, Grace E. Shephard, Dawn A. Kellett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFlood basaltLarge igneous provinceSverdrupRiftSillMagmatismPaleontologyGeochemistryStructural basinVolcanismTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Located along the Canadian polar continental margin, the Sverdrup Basin is an elongated, intracontinental sedimentary basin that originated during Carboniferous-Early Permian rifting. Starting in the Early Cretaceous, volcanic complexes (VC) were emplaced throughout the basin, which are associated with the High Arctic Large Igneous Province (HALIP). Geochronological and geochemical data on HALIP rocks exposed on Axel Heiberg Island and northern Ellesmere Island suggest several discrete stages of emplacement; (1) voluminous mafic intrusive activity of tholeiitic character accompanied by minor extrusive volcanism at ca. 125-110 Ma (VC1a); the eruption of tholeiitic flood basalts on Axel Heiberg Island at ca. 100-90 Ma (VC1b); the emplacement of mildly alkaline lava flows, sills and dykes on Ellesmere Island at ca. 100-90 Ma (VC2); and the eruption of a suite of alkaline lava flows from central volcanoes at ca. 85-75 Ma (VC3). Each magmatic episode is characterized by a distinctive eruptive style and coherent geochemical signature regardless of the mode of emplacement. In this context, onshore manifestations of the HALIP can be viewed as time-markers in the evolution of the adjacent polar continental margin. We use digital plate tectonic models, constructed via the GPlates software, to explore the parallel development of the Sverdrup Basin and proto-Arctic Ocean (Amerasia Basin) during the Early Cretaceous, and the transition from a sedimentary to volcanic Sverdrup Basin. Plate reconstructions of the Amerasia Basin at ca. 125 Ma suggest two zones of extension; one within the Canada Basin, which may include seafloor spreading, (Zone 1, more distal to the Sverdrup Basin) and the second further northwards in the Alpha-Mendeleev Ridge and Makarov Basin domains offshore northern Ellesmere Island (Zone 2, proximal to the northeastern portion of the Sverdrup Basin). The potential for enhanced melting caused by mantle flow (possibly related to the arrival of a mantle plume) towards the Sverdrup Basin depocentre could explain widespread magmatism of tholeiitic character from ca. 125-90 Ma (VC1). The transition to mildly alkaline (VC2) and alkaline magmatism (VC3) at ca. 100 Ma may have signaled the end of extension in Zone 1. The persistence of localized extension in Zone 2 could explain the shift in magmatic style and compositional diversity of igneous rocks emplaced at intrusive complexes (VC2) vs constructional volcanic edifices (VC3). In addition, greater depth to Moho along the northeastern Sverdrup Basin may have contributed to restricted mantle flow in Zone 2. We propose that the spatio-temporal evolution of HALIP magmatism in the Sverdrup Basin during the Cretaceous relates to (1) different styles of tectonic extension (distal vs proximal, protracted vs discrete, widespread vs narrow, seafloor spreading vs hyper-extensional rifting), and (2) the presence of hot, thin lithosphere close to the basin depocentre vs cold and thick lithosphere in the northeastern part of the basin.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.184
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207