MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387353074 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg8284

Recurring volcanic winters during the latest Cretaceous: Sulfur and fluorine budgets of Deccan Traps lavas

2023· article· en· W4387353074 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Callegaro, Don R. Baker, Paul R. Renne, Leone Melluso, Kalotina Geraki, Martin J. Whitehouse, Ângelo De Min, Andrea Marzoli

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNorges ForskningsrådDiamond Light SourceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFlood basaltDeccan TrapsVolcanoGeologyCretaceousBasaltExtinction eventEarth scienceVolcanismImpact craterPaleontologyGeochemistryPaleogeneTectonicsAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two events share the stage as main drivers of the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction-Deccan Traps volcanism, and an asteroid impact recorded by the Chicxulub crater. We contribute to refining knowledge of the volcanic stressor by providing sulfur and fluorine budgets of Deccan lavas from the Western Ghats (India), which straddle the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Volcanic fluorine budgets were variable (400 to 3000 parts per million) and probably sufficient to affect the environment, albeit only regionally. The highest sulfur budgets (up to 1800 parts per million) are recorded in Deccan lavas emplaced just prior (within 0.1 million years) to the extinction interval, whereas later basalts are generally sulfur-poor (up to 750 parts per million). Independent evidence suggests the Deccan flood basalts erupted in high-flux pulses. Our data suggest that volcanic sulfur degassing from such activity could have caused repeated short-lived global drops in temperature, stressing the ecosystems long before the bolide impact delivered its final blow at the end of the Cretaceous.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207