MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318218389 · doi:10.1111/ter.12644

Detrital zircon age signatures of the Mesozoic in the Lusitanian Basin and implications for the evolution of Iberia–Newfoundland conjugate margins

2023· article· en· W4318218389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pedro Dinis, Pieter Vermesch, Pedro M. Callapez

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZirconTerraneGeologyMesozoicPaleontologyPaleozoicArcheanPermianGeochronologyMagmatismDevonianStructural basinPrecambrianGeochemistryTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New detrital zircon age results from the Lusitanian Basin are integrated with published data for the Mesozoic of west Iberia and eastern Canada (4959 concordant ages). Zircons in new samples are either mainly Devonian‐Permian, Cryogenian‐Ediacaran or reveal a combination of these two age populations, showing secondary to minor Mesoproterozoic‐Archean ages. Statistical tools applied to the compiled age data allow grouping the samples according to age signatures and explain main features of the age spectra. Age signatures are determined by the abundance of zircon: (1) recycled from terranes involved in Pangea amalgamation; (2) associated with Acadian‐Variscan crystalline rocks (~420–310 Ma), which becomes younger from the Laurentian to the Gondwanan sides of the orogen; (3) associated with post‐collisional events (~300–285 Ma) that affected different terranes and were exhumed in major structures controlling basin formation; and (4) resulting from Mesozoic magmatism (~145 Ma) with a stronger imprint in the west Atlantic margin.

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 score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207