MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407378354 · doi:10.1029/2024gc011762

U‐Pb Geochronology and Lu‐Hf Isotopic Characterization of the Canadian High Arctic Large Igneous Province (HALIP): Comparison to Oceanic Plateau Magmatism

2025· article· en· W4407378354 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David M Dockman, Thomas Hadlari, D. Graham Pearson, Larry M. Heaman, C. K. Sarkar, Keith Dewing

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGeological Survey of Canada
FundersCommission Géologique du CanadaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsGeochronologyMagmatismGeologyIgneous rockGeochemistryPlateau (mathematics)ArcticZirconEarth scienceOceanographyPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent high‐precision geochronological studies have delineated three main pulses of basaltic magmatism between ca. 130‐80 Ma in the Cretaceous High Arctic Large Igneous Province (HALIP) in northern Canada. Here we report new U‐Pb TIMS baddeleyite and zircon dates for samples from Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands, which further support the duration and pulsed nature of the magmatism previously documented. We add new LA‐ICPMS U‐Pb zircon dates on samples analyzed in a previous study to help resolve age heterogeneity observed in some samples. We also report the first LA‐ICPMS zircon Lu‐Hf results from HALIP intrusives to better constrain the HALIP mantle source composition. Initial εHf zircon results for five HALIP basalts with minimal evidence for continental crustal contamination from the Canadian Arctic Islands range from +9.0 to +14.7, and indicate extraction from a depleted mantle source similar to plume‐derived oceanic plateaux such as Kerguelen.

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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Geophysics GeosystemsSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207