MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310035879 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2022-0031

Characterization of the Wager shear zone, Nunavut, Canada: Insights from microstructures and geochronology

2022· article· en· W4310035879 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isabelle Therriault, Kyle P. Larson, H M Steenkamp, Francisco E. Apen, Riccardo Graziani, Mathieu Soret, Carl Guilmette, John M. Cottle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversité LavalOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochronologyShear zoneArcheanProterozoicShear (geology)GeochemistryLithosphereSeismologyPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wager shear zone is an ∼450-km long zone of high strain hosted within Proterozoic and Archean rocks of the Rae domain in northwestern Hudson Bay, Nunavut. New field mapping and microstructural analyzes, combined with titanite and apatite geochronology, define the style, kinematics, and timing of Proterozoic ductile deformation. The results indicate that the Wager shear zone accommodated high-temperature deformation between ca. 1.75 and 1.74 Ga with post-kinematic cooling through apatite U–Pb closure (425–530 °C) at ca. 1705 Ma. These new data show that the Wager shear zone was last active later than inferred in previous work, at a time when the western Churchill Province was undergoing lithospheric delamination and exhumation following the terminal collisional events in the western portion of the Trans-Hudson Orogen.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→