MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598721701 · doi:10.1029/2005gc001082

Improved dissolution and chemical separation methods for Lu‐Hf garnet chronometry

2006· article· en· W1598721701 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James N. Connelly

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZirconDissolutionQuartzGeologyMineralogyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)GeochemistryGeochronologySpinelEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Garnet‐based Lu‐Hf geochronology using conventional (HF‐HNO 3 ) dissolution methods may be compromised by full or partial digestion of Hf‐rich zircon inclusions. This study integrates two complimentary methods to substantially reduce zircon digestion while assuring complete digestion of garnet and sample‐spike equilibration. Handpicked garnet fractions are heat treated to >1000°C in an evacuated silica glass ampoule to anneal zircon inclusions and then dissolved with 12 M HCl at 210°C and cold 28 M HF. Analyses of heat‐treated garnet (and their high‐temperature breakdown products orthopyroxene‐spinel‐quartz) from Gore Mountain, New York, demonstrate the method is capable of complete dissolution of garnet and routinely achieving sample‐spike equilibration. Independent analyses of annealed and unannealed zircons dissolved by HCl – cold HF demonstrate the benefit of heat treatment prior to dissolution. Analyses of zircon‐rich garnets from peletic paragneisses of Labrador, Canada, show the potential of this method by returning Lu‐Hf ratios commensurate with the degree of heat treatment. Finally, a complementary chemical separation method for Lu and Hf is presented that supports analysis of garnet by MC‐ICP‐MS.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Geophysics GeosystemsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207