MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543336708 · doi:10.1111/jmg.12168

CONSONORM_HG: a new method of norm calculation for mid‐ to high‐grade metamorphic rocks

2015· article· en· W1543336708 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucie Mathieu, Sylvain Trépanier, Réal Daigneault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Metamorphic Geology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersCanada Economic Development for Quebec RegionsMinistère de l'Énergie et des Ressources Naturelles
KeywordsMetamorphic rockGreenschistGeologyGeochemistryMetamorphic faciesSilicateMineralogyCarbonateSilicate mineralsProtolithPetrographyMineralQuartzFaciesChemistryMaterials scienceMetallurgyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The CONSONORM_HG norm provides a standardized solution to approximate metamorphic assemblages for mid‐ to high‐grade metamorphic rocks. Other applications for this norm include: (i) the standardized classification of metamorphic rocks; (ii) the interpretation of hydrothermal alteration using indices calculated from normative minerals; (iii) the estimation of the carbonate content of rocks, even when CO2 has not been analysed. CONSONORM_HG is designed for rocks dominated by silicates, Fe–Ti oxides or carbonates, and it approximates the main mineral assemblages of amphibolite, granulite, greenschist and blueschist facies metamorphic rocks. The norm calculates silicate assemblages using one of the three Al–Ca–NaK–FeMg tetrahedra, a convenient way of representing a large number of silicate assemblages, for each of the 17 P–T conditions modelled and based on the Fe–Mg–Mn composition of the sample. In addition to silicate minerals, CONSONORM_HG calculates Fe–Ti oxides and other accessory minerals from minor elements, sulphides from analysed sulphur and/or from analysed metals and also carbonates from analysed CO2 or from normative CO2 estimated from the loss on ignition. CONSONORM_HG also integrates many reactions to address silicon deficits, as well as quartz–carbonate reactions to approximate natural assemblages better. The normative calculation is validated using published whole‐rock analyses and petrographic descriptions and its various applications are discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Metamorphic GeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207