MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395031511 · doi:10.1130/b37378.1

Paleomagnetic investigation of the basal Maieberg Formation (Namibia) cap carbonate sequence (635 Ma): Implications for Snowball Earth postglacial dynamics

2024· article· en· W4395031511 on OpenAlexaff
Thales Pescarini, Ricardo I.F. Trindade, Paul F. Hoffman, Lucy Gomes Sant’Anna

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America Bulletin · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleomagnetismGeologyCarbonateSequence (biology)PaleontologyEarth's magnetic fieldEarth (classical element)BiologyMagnetic fieldChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, we investigate the paleomagnetism of the basal Maieberg Formation (Namibia) cap carbonate sequence to elucidate its magnetic properties and paleolatitude of deposition, establish global correlations, and contribute to the understanding of Snowball Earth postglacial dynamics. Two distinct magnetization components, C1 and C2, were identified. C1 is interpreted as a depositional or post-depositional remanent magnetization carried by detrital pseudo-single domain (PSD) magnetite, while the C2 component is a thermochemical remanent magnetization carried by fine authigenic single domain (SD)–PSD magnetite. The deposition paleolatitude provided by C1 is 33.3° ± 3.2°, which gives an initial quantitative approximation of the paleolatitude for the underlying Marinoan Ghaub diamictites. The thickness of the Keilberg Member cap dolostone is anomalously high for the paleolatitude calculated with C1, which suggests that other factors besides the influence of the paleolatitude on carbonate oversaturation may have influenced the sedimentary production of cap dolostones and the overall thickness of the flooding cap carbonate sequence. Possible explanations could include the influence of alkalinity input combined with local tectonic subsidence during a long glacial period with unusually low sedimentation rates, which appear to be in a favorable configuration for the substantial thickness of the Keilberg Member. Paleomagnetic field reversals at the Keilberg cap dolostone and analogous units globally suggest a longer duration of marine transgression than energy-balance deglaciation models and sedimentological-geochemical observations have constrained. Factors such as ocean warming, thermal expansion, and local glacio-isostatic adjustments imply extended marine transgressions beyond the deglaciation period. Still, magnetostratigraphic estimates for postglacial transgressive sequences require longer time scales by a factor of five or more. Thus, the conflict arising between estimates derived from paleomagnetic data and the constraints imposed by climate physics underscores uncertainties regarding an unconventional field state or a remanence acquisition mechanism within these cap carbonates that is not fully understood. Importantly, if such a phenomenon proves to be primary and global, the widespread occurrence of these stratigraphically compressed reversals would support the precise temporal correlation between Marinoan cap dolostones. The C2 pole correlates with Cambrian remagnetization poles observed in carbonates from West Gondwana, which now extend to the Congo craton. The remanence acquisition of C2 likely stems from diagenesis-related low-temperature authigenic magnetite formation after the conversion of iron-rich smectite to iron-poor illite. Cooling associated with the Kaoko orogen’s exhumation and tectonic uplift possibly locked the magnetic system at ca. 520 Ma, supported by the C2 pole position on the West Gondwana apparent polar wander path, although other explanations remain valid.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.226
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 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society of America BulletinSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207