MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213146012 · doi:10.31223/x5m05w

Phanerozoic sedimentary cover history of the Hudson Platform: a heuristic modeling perspective

2022· preprint· en· W4213146012 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Kalin T. McDannell, Paul O’Sullivan, Kerry Gallagher, Scott Boroughs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsThermochronologyGeologyBayesian probabilityFission track datingOrdovicianHeuristicFrequentist inferencePaleontologyBayesian inferenceTectonicsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the long-term erosion and burial history of cratons is challenging due to the incompleteness of the rock record. Here we present a study involving laser ablation apatite fission-track dating of three Canadian Shield basement samples collected adjacent to the Ordovician nonconformity on the Hudson Platform. Compared to a conventional analysis, our samples are characterized by up to 3× the number of dated grains and > 6× the number of track-length measurements. The large dataset enhances Bayesian QTQt thermal history inversions and helps define conditions for AFTINV modeling within a heuristic Frequentist framework. Modeling is guided by a 'hierarchical testing' philosophy regarding model selection, which allows us to (i) assess the Bayesian model’s ability to infer plausible time-temperature paths from the data (i.e., assess sensitivity), (ii) compare the model results with the known geology, and (iii) recursively parameterize models with respect to the previous results. QTQt inversions without time-temperature constraints favor two reheating events, suggesting cooler, near-surface conditions during the late Neoproterozoic–early Paleozoic and Jurassic–early Cretaceous, consistent with major Hudson Platform unconformities. Models indicate that the exposed basement near the Hudson Bay Basin reached peak burial around 317 ± 18 Ma, likely occurring between the Famennian and Carnian stages. A second burial event occurred in the late Mesozoic to mid-Tertiary between the Aptian and Chattian stages, with peak burial estimated at ca. 46 ± 15 Ma. The easternmost sample, near the Moose River sub-basin, may have reached peak burial conditions at 83 ± 7 Ma (within uncertainty of other models), coinciding with Cretaceous sea level rise. Thermal histories align with preserved basin geology indicating burial during the Ordovician–Devonian and late Cretaceous. However, peak burial may have occurred in the Pennsylvanian and Eocene, implying a more extensive sedimentary cover than is currently preserved in the Hudson Bay Basin. These thermal histories are broadly consistent with burial reconstructions from the Williston Basin and Slave craton to the west. The now-exposed shield was formerly covered by sedimentary rocks estimated to be ∼1.24 ± 0.21 km thick during the Paleozoic and ∼1.37 ± 0.26 km thick on average from the latest Mesozoic through the middle Cenozoic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→