MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387183473 · doi:10.1080/00206814.2023.2263787

Does the Ollo de Sapo magmatic event support Furongian‒Tremadocian mantle plume activity fringing NW Gondwana?

2023· article· en· W4387183473 on OpenAlexaff
Josep Maria Casas, J. Brendan Murphy, Alejandro Díez Montes, Teresa Sánchez-García, Jacques de Poulpiquet, J. Javier Álvaro, Joan Guimerà

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Geology Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGondwanaGeologyOrdovicianMantle plumePaleontologyMaficUnconformityRiftGeochemistrySedimentary rockTectonicsLithosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose that the 495-470 Ma Ollo de Sapo magmatism in the Iberian Massif was the result of a mantle plume event in the Furongian-Early Ordovician. This plume was located beneath the northwestern margin of Gondwana and caused rapid and extensive melting of Ediacaran arc-related crustal rocks and their derived sediments. Mafic magmas due to plume partial melting underplated the crust and were emplaced at mid-lower crustal levels (~15km), and provided the heat for crustal melting. Manifestations of the plume include (i) pronounced magnetic anomalies in the region which match the distribution of Ollo de Sapo rocks, (ii) the Toledanian unconformity (and gap), which is attributed to thermal doming, and (iii) the significant thickness variations in Lower to Middle Ordovician sedimentary successions in adjacent areas. In a more regional context, we infer that the plume was one of a cluster of plumes impacting the Gondwana periphery and that it contributed to the birth and development of the Rheic Ocean throughout Gondwana margin breakup.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Geology ReviewSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207