MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321489810 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4334

Appinite complexes, granitoid batholiths and crustal growth: a conceptual model

2023· preprint· en· W4321489810 on OpenAlexaff
J. Brendan Murphy, William J. Collins, Donnelly B. Archibald

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaficGeochemistryGeologyFelsicBatholithPlutonFractional crystallization (geology)PetrologyPartial meltingMagmaSilicicMagma chamberZirconBasaltTectonicsVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appinites are a suite of plutonic rocks, ranging from ultramafic to felsic in composition, that are characterized by idiomorphic hornblende as the dominant mafic mineral in all lithologies and by spectacularly diverse textures, including planar and linear magmatic fabrics, mafic pegmatites and widespread evidence of mingling between mafic and felsic compositions. These features suggest crystallization from anomalously water-rich magma which, according to limited isotopic studies, has both mantle and meteoric components.Appinites typically occur as small (~2 km diameter) complexes emplaced along the periphery of granitoid plutons and commonly adjacent to major deep crustal faults, which they preferentially exploit during their ascent. Several studies emphasize the relationship between intrusion of appinites, granitoid plutonism and termination of subduction. However, recent geochronological data suggest a more long-lived genetic relationship between appinites and granitoid magma generation and subduction.Appinites may represent aliquots of hydrous basaltic magma derived from variably fractionated mafic underplates that were originally emplaced during protracted subduction adjacent to the MOHO, triggering generation of voluminous granitoid magmas by partial melting in the overlying MASH zone. The hydrous mafic magmas from this underplate may have ascended, accumulated, and differentiated at mid-to-upper crustal levels (ca. 3-6 kbar, 15 km depth) and crystallized under water-saturated conditions. The granitoid magmas were emplaced in pulses when transient stresses activated favourably oriented structures which became conduits for magma transport. The ascent of late mafic magmas, however, is impeded by the rheological barriers created by the structurally overlying granitoid magma bodies. Magmas that form appinite complexes evaded those rheological barriers because they preferentially exploited the deep crustal faults that bounded the plutonic system. In this scenario, appinite complexes may be a direct connection to the mafic underplate and so its most mafic components may provide insights into processes that generate granitoid batholiths and, more generally, into crustal growth in arc systems.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→