MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307249119 · doi:10.1130/b36331.1

Cambrian−Ordovician magmatic flare-up in NE Gondwana: A silicic large igneous province?

2022· article· en· W4307249119 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Dan, J. Brendan Murphy, Gong‐Jian Tang, Xiu‐Zheng Zhang, William M. White, Qiang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America Bulletin · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGondwanaGeologySilicicTerraneOrdovicianIgneous rockGeochemistryLarge igneous provinceDevonianPaleontologyMaficTectonicsMagmatismVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origin of the Cambrian−Ordovician tectono-magmatic events affecting NE Gondwana and the adjacent peri-Gondwanan terranes (e.g., Himalaya, Lhasa, Southern Qiangtang, Baoshan, Tengchong, Sibumasu, Helmand, and Karakorum) is controversial. Although its volume is poorly constrained, we propose that an extensive belt of granitic rocks that formed in various pulses between ca. 510 Ma and 460 Ma may represent the remains of a potential silicic large igneous province (LIP), which is referred to here as the Pinghe silicic LIP, with an areal extent of ∼2.5 Mkm2. The putative Pinghe silicic LIP is composed predominantly of S-type granites with subordinate A-type granites and minor intraplate mafic rocks. The recognition of this belt of granitic rocks aids in the refinement of tectonic reconstructions of Gondwana and of models for the rifting of terranes from its northern margin. The Pinghe silicic LIP broadly coincides with the adjacent 511 Ma Kalkarindji LIP in northern Australia, and the plume or mantle upwelling that triggered the Kalkarindji LIP may have been responsible for driving crustal melting that generated the granitic rocks, in a manner analogous to the Karoo−Chon Aike association.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society of America BulletinSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207