MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977390527 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4087343

Three modes of isograd formation in the northern Monashee Complex of the Canadian Cordillera

2018· other· en· W6977390527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsogradMetamorphic rockBiotiteShear zoneGreenschistTectonicsMetamorphic petrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This contribution re-examines textural relationships in metapelitic schist from five metamorphic zones separated by four isograds along the west flank of the Frenchman Cap dome in the southeastern Canadian Cordillera. There is a muscovite-out isograd formed by muscovite-dehydration melting in the kyanite-field. Two others, including one coinciding with the muscovite-out isograd, mark the appearance of sillimanite, which was produced along with biotite by garnet breakdown in the presence of melt. Two others mark the disappearance of kyanite: one formed during retrogression, the other coinciding with a shear zone (the Monashee décollement). Only the muscovite-out isograd, therefore, corresponds with the classical definition of an intersection of the topography with a prograde, isogradic-surface. This contribution exemplifies the need to use a descriptive definition of isograd as the trace of a surface across which a specific change in metamorphic mineralogy takes place. It is further proposed to specify their origin whenever possible with terms such as prograde-, retrograde- and structural-isograds. This revised terminology for isograds will improve our understanding of metamorphic terrains by helping to localize cryptic shear zones, gain a better understanding of the retrograde path and put firmer constraints on viable tectonic models.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

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)0.0830.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207