MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W646034903 · doi:10.1134/s0869593815030053

Results of the U-Pb age of detrital zircons from Upper Proterozoic deposits of the eastern slope of the Anabar uplift

2015· article· en· W646034903 on OpenAlexaff
А. В. Купцова, А. К. Khudoley, W J Davis, R H Rainbird, A. V. Molchanov

Bibliographic record

VenueStratigraphy and Geological Correlation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRipheanProterozoicSedimentologyHistorical geologyStructural basinGeochemistryBaltic ShieldStromatolitePaleontologyMineral resource classificationProvenancePrecambrianCarbonateTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Upper Proterozoic sequence in the southern part of the East Anabar Basin, as throughout the entire framing of the Anabar uplift, has a two-unit terrigenous-carbonate structure. The results of the U-Pb dating of detrital zircons show that there is a difference in stratigraphy of Riphean strata in the north and south of the Anabar Uplift. In the north, deposits of the entire sequence are regarded as Early Riphean; in the south, the thickness of these deposits is reduced to 70 m. The overlying stratum is regarded as Upper Riphean-Vendian. As the strata in the southern part of the East Anabar Basin strata are of younger (Late Riphean-Vendian) age, they cannot be assigned to the Mukun and Billyakh groups. The Riphean-Vendian deposits accumulated mainly through erosion of crystalline rocks of the Anabar Uplift. In the upper part of the sequence, the Vendian magmatic complexes located probably within the Taimyr Orogen played a significant role as provenance areas.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStratigraphy and Geological CorrelationSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207