MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238022365 · doi:10.5194/se-2019-192

Mapping undercover: integrated geoscientific interpretation and 3D modelling of a Proterozoic basin

2020· preprint· en· W4238022365 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Lindsay, Sandra Occhipinti, Crystal LaFlamme, Alan Aitken, Lara Ramos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalGeological Survey of Canada
FundersAustralian Research CouncilScience and Industry Endowment Fund
KeywordsMaficGeologyArcheanYilgarn CratonCratonProterozoicGeochemistryBasementMagmatismStructural basinProspectivity mappingVolcanic rockRiftPetrologyTectonicsPaleontologyEarth scienceVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Gravity and three-dimensional modelling combined with geochemical analysis are used to examine the subsurface within, and below the poorly exposed Paleoproterozoic Yerrida Basin in central Western Australia. Understanding the structure of a region is important as key features indicating past geodynamic processes and tectonic activity can be revealed. However, in stable, post-depositional tectonic settings only the younger sedimentary units tend to be widely exposed rendering direct observation of basement and intrusive rocks impossible. Geophysical imaging and modelling can reveal the structure of a region under cover. High amplitude density anomalies around the basin cannot be reconciled with current geological knowledge in the case presented here. The density anomalies infer an abundance of buried and high-density material that is not indicated by the surface geology. A hypothetical causative source for the high-density anomalies is considered to be intrusion and extrusion of volcanic mafic rocks during rifting of the basin. The simplest and plausible stratigraphic attribution of these interpreted mafic rocks is to the Killara Formation within the Mooloogool Group. However, geochemistry reveals that the Killara Formation is not the only host to mafic rocks within the region. Mafic rocks present in the Juderina Formation have largely been ignored in previous descriptions of Yerrida Basin magmatism and results indicate that they may be far more substantial than once thought. Sulphur isotopic data indicates no Archean signature to the mafic rocks, a somewhat surprising result given the basement to the Basin is Archean Yilgarn Craton. It is proposed the mafic rocks were sourced from vents located to the north along the Goodin Fault or under the Bryah sub-basin and Padbury Basins. The conclusion is that the formation of the Yerrida Basin involves a geodynamic history more complex than previously thought. The utility to the approach described here is examined for application to cratonic sag-basin environments. This result highlights the value in geophysics and geochemistry to reveal complexity in the earlier geodynamic evolution of the basin that may be indiscernible from surface geology, but may have high importance for the tectonic development of the region and its mineral resources.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207