MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Archean high-Mg magmas: Their significance for continental growth at Archean cratonic margins

2024· article· en· W4399150393 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek A. Wyman, Pete Hollings, Sheree Laina Kirsten Hinz, Chanelle Boucher

Bibliographic record

VenuePrecambrian Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArcheanGeologyGeochemistryGreenstone beltPetrologyEarth science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of Archean cratons has been linked to either stagnant or mobile lid processes in models that ultimately depend on the accurate interpretation of high-Mg volcanism. Recognition of the diversity of such greenstone belt magmas highlights a need for accurate classification of the sub-types, which is potentially offered by the boninite discrimination scheme of Pearce and Reagan (2019). The utility of the scheme is assessed at two localities in the western Superior Craton where komatiites have been reported but not extensively studied: the Lake of the Woods greenstone belt of the Western Wabigoon terrane and the Shebandowan greenstone belt of the western Wawa-Abitibi terrane. It is then applied to the southern Abitibi belt where evidence for both mantle plume and subduction-style magmatism presents complex geodynamic challenges. In combination with previously recognized boninites or boninitic rocks in the Kidd-Munro Assemblage and Opatica Terrane, the new results support models of short-lived subduction events in the Archean and underlines their role in craton growth prior to the development of a global network of tectonic plates.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrecambrian ResearchSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207