MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3216703014 · doi:10.4095/326053

Overview of Cordilleran oceanic terranes and their significance for the tectonic evolution of the northern Cordillera

2021· report· en· W3216703014 on OpenAlexaff
A Zagorevski, Cees R. van Staal, J H Bédard, Adina Bogatu, Dante Canil, Max Coleman, Martyn L. Golding, Nancy Joyce, C J M Lawley, Siobhan McGoldrick, Mitchell G. Mihalynuk, Dejan Milidragovic, Andrew J. Parsons, P Schiarizza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerraneOphioliteGeologyPaleontologyTectonicsOceanic crustContinental marginPassive marginPermianEarth sciencePlate tectonicsSubductionRift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ophiolite complexes are an important component of oceanic terranes in the northern Cordillera and constitute a significant amount of juvenile crust added to the Mesozoic Laurentian continental margin during Cordilleran orogenesis. Despite their tectonic importance, few systematic studies of these complexes have been conducted. Detailed studies of the pseudostratigraphy, age, geochemistry, and structural setting of ophiolitic rocks in the northern Cordillera indicate that ophiolites formed in Permian to Middle Triassic suprasubduction zone settings and were obducted onto passive margin sequences. Re-evaluation of ophiolite complexes highlights fundamental gaps in the understanding of the tectonic framework of the northern Cordillera. The previous inclusion of ophiolite complexes into generic 'oceanic' terranes resulted in significant challenges for stratigraphic nomenclature, led to incorrect terrane definitions, and resulted in flawed tectonic reconstructions.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.233
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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