MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403223944 · doi:10.1130/g52368.1

Ash deposits link Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 to High Arctic volcanism

2024· article· en· W4403223944 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wolf Dummann, Volker Wennrich, Claudia J. Schröder-Adams, Niklas Leicher, Jens O. Herrle

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolcanismGeologyAnoxic watersEarth scienceArcticGeochemistryThe arcticEvent (particle physics)OceanographyPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 (OAE 2) was a major environmental perturbation that occurred ∼94 million years ago. It is associated with profound changes in global climate and carbon cycling, which are commonly attributed to large-scale carbon release from large igneous province (LIP) volcanism. However, the specific LIP(s) involved and the mechanisms of carbon release remain poorly understood, as indicated by discrepancies between carbon release rates suggested by numerical models and LIP degassing estimates. Our study refines the eruptive history of the High Arctic large igneous province (HALIP) by dating ashfall deposits in marine sediments from the Canadian High Arctic using an integrated stratigraphic approach. Our results show that silicic HALIP volcanism began tens of thousands of years before OAE 2, suggesting a strong causal link. Volcanic activity coincides with a marked shift in carbon isotope values, linked to the degassing of HALIP magmas and/or thermogenic gas release. We propose that the concurrent activity of two LIPs—the HALIP and the Kerguelen Plateau—could account for the high rates of carbon release inferred for OAE 2, providing a hypothesis for its pervasive environmental impact.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.195 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207