MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286299818 · doi:10.1029/2022jb024031

Age and Rate of Accumulation of Metal‐Rich Hydrothermal Deposits on the Seafloor: The Lucky Strike Vent Field, Mid‐Atlantic Ridge

2022· article· en· W4286299818 on OpenAlexafffund
Dennis Sánchez Mora, John W. Jamieson, Mathilde Cannat, J. Escartı́n, Thibaut Barreyre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHydrothermal circulationSeafloor spreadingMid-Atlantic RidgeGeologyRidgeHydrothermal ventMid-ocean ridgeGeochemistryTectonicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hydrothermal venting at the Lucky Strike hydrothermal field, located on the Mid‐Atlantic Ridge, is associated with faulting linked to the tectonic dismemberment of a central axial volcano. Radium‐226/Ba dating of hydrothermal barite indicates that hydrothermal venting is at least 6,600 years old, and that Lucky Strike is one of the youngest known vent fields on the Mid‐Atlantic Ridge, which typically have ages exceeding 20 ka. Deposit volume calculations indicate that the total accumulated mass of the hydrothermal deposits on the seafloor at Lucky Strike is ∼1.3 ± 0.2 Mt, and that this mass accumulated at a maximum average rate of 194 ± 28 t/yr. This accumulation rate is comparable to other well characterized mid‐ocean ridge hydrothermal sites, such as TAG and Endeavor, but at Lucky Strike is concentrated within a relatively small area of <2.5 km2.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207