MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256640799 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11475

Pliocene to Late Pleistocene Magmatism in the Aurora Volcanic Field, Nevada and California, USA: A Petrographic, Geochemical, and Isotopic Study

2016· dissertation· en· W4256640799 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Kingdon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsGeologyPetrographyGeochemistrySubductionPleistoceneMagmatismVolcanoMantle (geology)Incompatible elementVolcanic arcVolcanic rockPaleontologyEarth scienceTectonicsPartial melting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pliocene-Pleistocene Aurora Volcanic Field (AVF) covers 325 km 2 , stretches across the California-Nevada border north of Mono Lake, and overlaps the Miocene Bodie Hills Volcanic Field (BHVF).It lies within the northwest-striking Walker Lane shear zone at the western margin of the Basin and Range province.Although erupted in a postsubduction setting, normalized incompatible element patterns show a continental arc-like signature, similar to those of other late Cenozoic volcanic fields within the Walker Lane, interpreted to reflect a metasomatized lithospheric mantle source.Petrographic features suggest syn-magmatic open system processes.While trace element compositions show few signs of these processes, the range in isotopic ratios confirm them.The BHVF and the AVF rocks have similar Pb isotope ratios, however, the AVF rocks have higher 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, lower 143 Nd/ 144 Nd, and stronger correlations between 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, silica, and 18 O, indicating that crustal assimilation was a more influential process in the AVF than in the BHVF.

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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→