MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309534893 · doi:10.1144/sp531-2022-176

The provenance of Avalonia and its tectonic implications: a critical reappraisal

2022· article· en· W4309534893 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Brendan Murphy, R. Damian Nance, Lei Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGondwanaTerraneGeologyBalticaPaleozoicPaleontologyOrdovicianLaurentiaContinental crustCratonPassive marginTectonicsRift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The late Neoproterozoic–Cambrian interval is characterized by global-scale orogenesis, rapid continental growth and profound changes in Earth systems. Orogenic activity involved continental collisions spanning more than 100 myr, culminating in Gondwana amalgamation. Avalonia is an example of arc magmatism and accretionary tectonics as subduction zones re-located to Gondwana's periphery in the aftermath of those collisions, and its evolution provides significant constraints for global reconstructions. Comprising late Neoproterozoic ( c. 650–570 Ma) arc-related magmatic and metasedimentary rocks, Avalonia is defined as a composite terrane by its latest Ediacaran–Ordovician overstep sequence: a distinctive, siliciclastic-dominated cover bearing ‘Acado-Baltic’ fauna. This definition implies that Neoproterozoic Avalonia may consist of several terranes, and so precise palaeomagnetic or provenance determination in one locality need not apply to all. On the basis of detrital zircon and Nd isotopic data, Avalonia and other lithotectonically related terranes, such as Cadomia, have long been thought to have resided along the Amazonian–West African margin of Gondwana between c. 650 and 500 Ma – Avalonia connected to Amazonia, and Cadomia to West Africa. These interpretations have constrained Paleozoic reconstructions, many of which imply that the departure of several peri-Gondwanan terranes led to the Early Paleozoic development of the Rheic Ocean whose subsequent demise in the Late Paleozoic led to Pangaea's amalgamation. Since these ideas were proposed, several new lines of evidence have challenged the Amazonian affinity of Avalonia. First, there is evidence that some Avalonian terranes may have been ‘peri-Baltican’ during the Neoproterozoic. Baltica was originally excluded as a potential source for Avalonia because, unlike Amazonia, arc-related Neoproterozoic rocks were not documented. However, subsequent recognition of Ediacaran arc-related sequences in the Timanides of northeastern Baltica invalidates this assumption. Second, detailed palaeontological and lithostratigraphic studies have been interpreted to reflect an insular Avalonia, well removed from either Gondwana or Baltica during the Ediacaran and early Cambrian. Third, recent palaeomagnetic data have raised the possibility of an ocean (Clymene Ocean) between Amazonia and West Africa in the late Neoproterozoic, thereby challenging conventional reconstructions that show the ‘peri-Gondwanan’ terranes as a contiguous belt straddling the suture zone between these cratons. In this contribution, we critically re-evaluate the provenance of the so-called ‘peri-Gondwanan’ terranes, the contiguity of the so-called ‘Avalonian–Cadomian’ belt and the validity of the various plate tectonic models based on the traditional interpretation of these terranes. In addition, we draw attention to critical uncertainties and the challenges that lie ahead.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207