MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214191474 · doi:10.1130/g49418.1

Global-scale emergence of continental crust during the Mesoarchean–early Neoarchean

2021· article· en· W3214191474 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Wang, Peter A. Cawood, Christopher J. Spencer, Manoj K. Pandit, Jun‐Hong Zhao, Xiaoping Xia, Jianping Zheng, Gui‐Mei Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMagmatismSubaerialContinental crustGeochemistryCrustEarth scienceArcheanIgneous rockMagmaPaleontologyVolcanoTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The timing of the emergence of subaerial landmasses is equivocally constrained as post-Archean and continues to be a much-debated issue. In this study, we document exceptionally 18O-depleted (δ18O < 4.7‰) Mesoarchean to early Neoarchean magmatism in India that shows a similarity with the coeval low-δ18O magmas reported from Australia, South America, and northern China. Such global-scale low-δ18O magmatism would require high-temperature meteoric water–rock interaction in the uppermost crust synchronous with magma generation, necessitating the emergence of a substantial volume of the continental crust. The timing of this low-δ18O magmatism coincides with the development of extensive, subaerial large igneous provinces, a downward shift in δ18O and Δ17O values in pelitic rocks, the rise of normalized 87Sr/86Sr in seawater, and an intermittent upsurge in the proportion of atmospheric oxygen. We propose that the emergence of substantial volumes of continental crust initiated at ca. 3.2 Ga and peaked at 2.8–2.6 Ga, facilitating the generation of globally distributed low-δ18O magmas, and this event can be linked to the first appearance of atmospheric oxygen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207