MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P-T-t-d history of low-grade Permian metasediments in the Austroalpine Unit

2024· preprint· en· W4401978406 on OpenAlexaff
Marianne Sophie Hollinetz, Benjamin Huet, Bernhard Grasemann, David Schneider, Chris McFarlane, Gerhard Bryda, Gerhard W. Mandl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermianUnit (ring theory)GeologyGeochemistryPaleontologyMathematicsMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Austroalpine Unit is a nappe stack that formed by accretion of Adria-derived material in Late Jurassic to middle Late Cretaceous times. Its history is mostly recorded by upper crustal non-metamorphic rocks and lower crustal upper greenschist to eclogite facies metamorphic rocks. Data from the ubiquitous mid-crustal, low-grade metamorphic units are, however, either missing or difficult to interpret, complicating the link between the shallow and deep orogenic levels. We present new pressure-temperature-time-deformation data for the Permian Präbichl Formation, sampled in the Tirolic-Noric Nappe System (TNNS) below the overlying Juvavic Nappe System (JNS) at two localities. This formation consists of lower greenschist facies clastic sediments and corresponds to the Permian cover of the pre-Variscan basement. The metamorphic assemblage of the Präbichl Formation contains chloritoid + muscovite ± pyrophyllite + hematite + rutile + quartz. Phase equilibrium calculations and Raman spectroscopy on carbonaceous material indicate peak P-T conditions of ~350°C and 0.4-0.5 GPa. In both samples, 10 to 30 µm xenotime show systematic chemical zoning with a heterogeneous core and a distinct MREEs-rich rim. We targeted each chemical domain by in-situ LA-ICP-MS U-Pb dating. The concordant U-Pb ages from cores range between 632 Ma and 250 Ma, and likely reflect an inherited component. Younger dates were measured in the xenotime rims. In the eastern sample (Noric Nappe), a concordant cluster yields a weighted mean age of 133.6 ± 2.8 Ma (MSWD: 1.7, n: 14). Host-inclusion relationships of chloritoid and xenotime suggest coeval growth of the xenotime rim and chloritoid porphyroblasts, linking the U-Pb age to the growth of the main metamorphic assemblage. An additional set of discordant analyses yield an anchored discordia age of 91.5 ± 3.6 Ma (MSWD: 1.2, n: 7). In the western sample (Staufen-Höllengebirge Nappe), a set of concordant and discordant analyses yield an anchored age of 90.1 ± 1.4 Ma (MSWD: 1.8, n: 16). Xenotime and chloritoid are not observed in direct contact, and this sample is characterized by a pervasive crenulation cleavage, which postdates chloritoid growth. From the distribution and morphology of xenotime we conclude that post-peak dissolution-precipitation related to crenulation cleavage formation facilitated growth of the rim. These results have two key implications. Firstly, the 133.6 ± 2.8 Ma date coincides with the age of the latest syn-orogenic sediments overthrusted by the Juvavic Dachstein Nappe. It is therefore interpreted as the age of peak metamorphism after thrusting of the JNS over the TNNS ceased. The peak pressure of 0.4-0.5 GPa at that time corresponds to an overburden of ~17 km, which cannot be solely explained by the thickness of the JNS, which has a present day thickness of 5-10 km, suggesting the existence of a missing unit. Secondly, the 90-92 Ma dates correspond to the timing of the onset of post-orogenic sedimentation in the Gosau basins overlying both the TNNS and JNS and the exhumation of the Austroalpine eclogites. This implies a major change of dynamics at all levels of the orogen at that time.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and Exploration→French-language works237,207→