MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183429781 · doi:10.1130/abs/2020am-352267

SYNCING FAULT ROCK CLOCKS; DIRECT COMPARISON OF U-PB CARBONATE AND K-AR ILLITE FAULT DATING METHODS

2020· article· en· W3183429781 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine Mottram, Dawn A. Kellett

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts with programs - Geological Society of America · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsIlliteK–Ar datingFault (geology)GeologyCarbonateGeochemistrySeismologyClay mineralsMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timing of slip on brittle faults in Earth's upper crust is difficult to constrain, and direct radiometric dating of fault-generated materials is the most explicit approach.Here we make a direct comparison between K-Ar dating of fault gouge clay (authigenic illite) and U-Pb dating of carbonate slickenfibers and veins from the same fault.We have dated fault generated materials from the Big Creek fault, a northwest-striking, dextral strike-slip fault system in Yukon Territory, Canadian Cordillera.Both methods yielded dates at ca. 73 Ma and ca.60-57 Ma, representing at least two periods of fault slip that form part of a complex fault and fluid-flow history.The Cretaceous result lies within previous indirect estimates for major slip on the fault.The Paleocene-Eocene result coincides with the estimated timing of slip of the nearby Tintina and Denali faults, which are crustal-scale, northwest-striking dextral faults, indicating Big Creek fault reactivation during regional faulting.The coincidence of periods of carbonate-crystallizing fracturing and fluid flow with intervals of seismic, gouge-generating slip supports the fault valve model, where fault strength is mediated by fluid pressures, and fluid emplacement requires seismic pumping in otherwise impermeable aseismic fault zones.The reproducibility of slip periods for distinct fault-generated materials using different decay systems indicates that these methods provide complimentary results and can be reliably applied to date brittle fault slip, opening new opportunities for investigating fault conditions with associated mineralizing fluid events. DATING BRITTLE FAULTSBrittle faults record past seismic slip events and are major fluid conduits, channeling magma, ore-generating fluids, oil, gas, and water (Haines et al., 2016).In the fault valve model, fluids mediate fault strength, acting as a catalyst for seismic slip (Sibson, 1992).Determining periods of frictional slip and fault-related fluid flow is critical for testing fault strength models.Fault histories are also important for building regional tectonic frameworks, understanding ore genesis, forming basin evolution models, and studying seismically active faults that pose geohazards and engineering challenges (e.g., Zwingmann et al., 2010).Fault timing is typi-

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstracts with programs - Geological Society of AmericaSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207