MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385549786 · doi:10.7185/geochemlet.2324

A whole-lithosphere view of continental growth

2023· article· en· W4385549786 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Reimink, Joshua H.F.L. Davies, Jean‐François Moyen, D. Graham Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemical Perspectives Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyLithosphereContinental crustMantle (geology)CrustContinental marginZirconEarth scienceGeochemistryPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continental crust is a defining feature of Earth; yet, the mechanisms that control its growth remain hotly debated. Many approaches to estimating crustal growth focus solely on a single mineral-zircon, while constraints from the lithospheric mantle root remain largely neglected. Here, we critically examine the ability of zircon to accurately record the relative roles of juvenile crustal addition versus recycling, and present an alternative approach based on the geochemistry of crustal rock samples. The resulting model of continental crustal growth parallels, but pre-dates, the pattern of cratonic mantle lithosphere formation ages, indicating a distinct relationship between the continental crust and its mantle root. Our results indicate that continental crust and deep cratonic lithospheric roots grew progressively over 2.5 Gyr of Earth history, with clear temporal links to the birth of extensive lithospheric keels and establishment of continental drainage basins.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemical Perspectives LettersSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207