The nature and origin of cratons constrained by their surface geology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cratons, defined by their resistance to deformation, are guardians of crustal and lithospheric material over billion-year time scales. Archean and Proterozoic rocks can be found in many places on earth, but not all of them represent cratonic areas. Some of these old terrains, inappropriately termed “cratons” by some, have been parts of mobile belts and have experienced widespread deformations in response to mantle-plume-generated thermal weakening, uplift and consequent extension and/or various plate boundary deformations well into the Phanerozoic. It is a common misconception that cratons consist only of metamorphosed crystalline rocks at their surface, as shown by the indiscriminate designation of them by many as “shields.” Our compilation shows that this conviction is not completely true. Some recent models argue that craton formation results from crustal thickening caused by shortening and subsequent removal of the upper crust by erosion. This process would expose a high-grade metamorphic crust at the surface, but greenschist-grade metamorphic rocks and even unmetamorphosed supracrustal sedimentary rocks are widespread on some cratonic surfaces today, showing that craton formation does not require total removal of the upper crust. Instead, the granulitization of the roots of arcs may have been responsible for weighing down the collided and thickened pieces and keeping their top surfaces usually near sea level. In this study, we review the nature and origin of cratons on four well-studied examples. The Superior Province (the Canadian Shield), the Barberton Mountain (Kaapvaal province, South Africa), and the Yilgarn province (Western Australia) show the diversity of rocks with different origin and metamorphic degree at their surface. These fairly extensive examples are chosen because they are typical. It would have been impractical to review the entire extant cratonic surfaces on earth today. We chose the inappropriately named North China “Craton” to discuss the requirements to be classified as a craton.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".