MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205146142 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggab501

Magmatic and rifting-related features of the Lomonosov Ridge, and relationships to the continent–ocean transition zone in the Amundsen Basin, Arctic Ocean

2022· article· en· W4205146142 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Funck, John Shimeld, Matthew H. Salisbury

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNationale Geologiske Undersøgelser for Danmark og GrønlandCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
KeywordsGeologyCrustRidgeOceanic crustContinental crustRiftBasementStructural basinVolcanoSeismologyPaleontologyGeophysicsOceanic basinArcticSeafloor spreadingTectonicsSubductionOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The continental Lomonosov Ridge spans across the Arctic Ocean and was the subject of a geophysical study in 2016 with two seismic reflection lines crossing the ridge in proximity to the North Pole, one of which continues across the continent–ocean transition zone into the Amundsen Basin. One seismic station and 15 sonobuoys were deployed along these two lines to record seismic wide-angle reflections and refractions for development of a crustal-scale velocity model. Its viability is checked using gravity data from the experiment which are also used to interpolate crustal structure in areas with poor seismic constraints. On the line extending into the Amundsen Basin, continental crust composed of two layers with velocities of 6.0 and 6.5 km s–1 is encountered beneath the Lomonosov Ridge where the Moho depth is 21 km based on gravity modelling. The crust is overlain by a 1-km-thick layer with velocities of 4.7 km s–1 coinciding with a zone of positive magnetic anomalies of up to 180 nT. This layer is interpreted to include extrusive volcanic rocks related to the Cretaceous High Arctic Large Igneous Province (HALIP). Within the Amundsen Basin, three distinct crustal domains can be distinguished. Closest to the ridge is a 40-km-wide zone with a crustal thickness around 5 km interpreted as thinned continental crust. Five distinctive faulted basement blocks display high-amplitude reflections along their crests with velocities of 4.6 km s–1, representing the continuation of the magmatic rocks further upslope. Brozena et al. (2003) interpreted magnetic Chron C25 to be located in this zone but our data are not consistent with this being a seafloor spreading anomaly. In the adjacent crustal domain, heading basinward, the basement flattens and two layers with velocities of 5.2 and 6.8 km s–1 can be distinguished, where the upper and lower layer have a thickness of 1.5 and 2.0 km, respectively. The upper layer is interpreted as exhumed and highly serpentinized mantle while the lower layer may be less serpentinized mantle with some gabbroic intrusions. This may explain the high-amplitude reflections within the overlying sediments that are interpreted as sill intrusions. Continuing basinward, the last crustal domain represents 4-to 5-km-thick oceanic crust with a variable basement relief and velocities of 4.8 and 6.5 km s–1 at the top of oceanic layers 2 and 3, respectively. It is within this zone that the first true seafloor spreading anomaly Chron C24 is observed, which argues for a similar breakup age in the Eurasia Basin as in the Northeast Atlantic. On the other profile crossing the Lomonosov Ridge, a 60-km-wide intrusion into the lower crust is observed where velocities are increased to 6.9 km s–1. Gravity modelling supports the interpretation of magmatic underplating beneath the intrusion. Seismic data in this region show that the crust is overlain by a 2-km-thick series of high-amplitude reflections with a velocity of 4.8 km s–1 in a 30-km-wide zone where strong magnetic anomalies (>800 nT) are observed, suggesting a composition of basalt flows. This part of the Lomonosov Ridge appears therefore to have a HALIP-related magmatic overprint at all crustal levels.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207