MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221037000 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-11825

The Norian magmatic rocks of Jabuka, Brusnik and Vis Islands (Croatia) and their bearing on the evolution of Triassic magmatism in the Adria Plate

2022· preprint· en· W4221037000 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Velicogna, Marko Kudurna Prasek, Luca Ziberna, Ângelo De Min, Valentina Brombin, Fred Jourdan, Paul R. Renne, Andrea Marzoli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Formations and Processes Exploration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagmatismGeologyOrogenySubductionMantle (geology)GeochemistryPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The magmatic bodies of Jabuka, Brusnik, and Vis Islands of the Adriatic Sea are located in the easternmost part of the Adria Plate (Adriatic Unit according to Slovenec & Šegvić, 2021), close to the External Dinarides (Pamić and Balen, 2005). The magmatic rocks on the islands are, from West to East, intrusive bodies on Jabuka, sub-intrusive on Brusnik, and effusive rocks on Vis. Feldspar separates from Jabuka and Brusnik Islands yielded mini-plateau 40Ar/39Ar ages of 229.0 ± 5.4 Ma and 221.5 ± 2.5 Ma indicating that this magmatism is Carnian-Norian in age. The whole-rock geochemical compositions (major and trace elements, Sr-Nd isotopes) indicate that the magmatic rocks of the Croatian Islands range from tholeiitic to calc-alkaline, yielding a subduction signature. This signature is also shared by coeval magmas from the Adria Plate and may be related to crustal components subducted during the Hercynian orogeny and recycled within the mantle source(s) of this anorogenic magmatism.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Formations and Processes ExplorationFrench-language works237,207