The significance of Archean sanukitoids in the cratonization process: The example of the Barlow pluton, between the Abitibi and Opatica subprovinces, Superior Craton, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Association between sanukitoids and high Sr/Y TTGs highlighting major structures. • Transcrustal structures allows syntectonic magmas to reach the upper crust. • Sanukitoids sealed major structures contributing to cratonization. Much debate surrounds Archean crustal growth and its evolution, as well as processes leading to the stabilization of the crust (cratonization). The Barlow pluton is a late-tectonic granitoid that intrudes into the boundary between the Abitibi greenstone belt and the Opatica plutonic belt (Québec, Canada), two subprovinces that make up the southeastern part of the Superior Craton. The Barlow pluton and the Maaskitkuu tonalite, one of its host rocks, are useful to improve the understanding of tectonic and magmatic processes along the margins of subprovinces in Archean cratons. Here, whole-rock analyses, dating (U-Pb on zircon) and barometry on amphibole are used to define the petrogenesis of these two plutons. The older Maaskitkuu tonalite (ca. 2705 Ma) belongs to a Tonalite-Trondhjemite-Granodiorite (TTG) intrusive suite and has a high Sr/Y ratio. The Barlow pluton (ca. 2696 Ma) belongs to the sanukitoid group. The Maaskitkuu tonalite emplaced 10 km deeper than the Barlow pluton, pointing to the exhumation of 10 km of rocks in about 11 Ma, corresponding to an exhumation rate of 1.37 mm/yr. When combined with previous structural and seismic studies, the observations support an imbrication of terranes farther to the north and the south to explain the arrangement of both subprovinces, marked by a transcrustal structure. This structure allows melts from the lower crust and the metasomatized mantle to ascend toward the upper crust promoting the cratonization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".