Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term craton has a complex and confused etymology. Despite originally specifying only strength and stability – of the crust – the term craton has seen widespread use as referring to a region characterised by crustal basement older than 2.5 Ga, despite the fact that some such “cratons” no longer possess their deep lithospheric root and have geological histories that contnue well beyond the Archean/Proterozoic boundary. Viscous, buoyant lithospheric mantle roots are key to the survival and stability of continental crust. Here we use a revised craton definition (Pearson et al., 2021, Nature), that includes the requirement of a deep (~150 km or greater) and intact lithospheric root, to re-examine extent and character of regions defined as crtons. The revised definition has a nominal requirement for tectonic stability since ~ 1 Ga and recognises that some regions are “modified cratons” – having lost their deep roots, i.e., they may have behaved like cratons for an extended period but subsequently lost much of their stabilising mantle roots during major tectono-thermal events. In other words, despite being long-lived features, cratons are not all permanent. The 150 km lithospheric thickness cut-off provides an optimal match to crustal terranes with 1 Ga timescale stability. We examine the processes involved in craton ormation and growth. Seismology can help to define the lateral extent of today’s cratons, but a detailed understanding of the regional geological history, kimberlite eruption ages and geothermal conditions is required to evaluate periods of past diamond potential, no-longer evident today.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".