MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The meteorites of Alberta

2010· article· en· W1615312887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoriteWonderAstrobiologyAppealGeologyHistoryPhilosophyPhysicsPolitical scienceEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The meteorites of Alberta , edited by A. J. Whyte . Edmonton : The University of Alberta Press , 2009, 290 p., paperback, CND 34.95, USD 34.95, £18.5 (ISBN: 978-0-88864-475-6) . To be honest, when I first received this book, I did wonder what type of read it would make as, on first impression, it could be seen as rather a “niche” topic. However, I soon realized that in fact it would appeal to readers with many different areas of interest, from those interested in the historical aspects of meteorites to those researchers with a more specific interest in Canadian meteorites or indeed, specific well-known Canadian samples such as Abee and Bruderheim. The book starts with a short, well-written introduction to meteorites and their study, outlining the features of different meteorite types, description of the different mineralogies and chemical compositions, how to recognize a meteorite, and explanations of the different techniques used to analyse samples. I felt this introduction served very well, especially for a non-specialist reader, for later in each chapter there is a lot of detail given to the different analyses carried out on each Albertan meteorite during its life on Earth. The bulk (15) of the 19 chapters in the book is dedicated to meteorites which fell or have been found in Alberta. Each of these “meteorite” chapters is divided into two main parts––“History” and “Science” and for some of the better studied meteorites, the science chapter is further subdivided into more specific topics, e.g., mineralogy, fall phenomena, etc. The last four chapters cover the history of Canadian fireball and meteor observation programs, impacts and the recent discoveries of “Belly River Buttes” and “Lake Eliza,” meteorites which are yet to be officially named and classified. The indexing is clear, there are notes provided for each chapter, there are detailed references for those wishing to seek out the primary sources and there is a brief but well-written glossary, mostly describing mineralogical nomenclature and other petrologic terms which will be of great help to the nonspecialist reader. With regards to illustrations the book is almost predominantly in black and white with six color plates of plane and cross-polarized PTS photomicrographs of the Belly River, Bruderheim, Peace River, and Skiff meteorites, along with one reflected light photomicrograph of Abee. Each chapter is accompanied by relevant photographs and maps and in many of the chapters, tables of various geochemical data, which I would say is probably of more relevance to professional scientists. The author has thoroughly researched each Albertan meteorite by carrying out detailed archival searches using a number of different sources, for some meteorites there is much information for others less. I know from personal experience in curating a large collection, including many historical specimens, that this can be rather frustrating, especially when trying to clarify the find history and provenance of a sample. The first and second chapters illustrate this contrast very well. The Edmonton (Canada) meteorite (described in Chapter 1) was studied by Professor John A. Allan of the Department of Geology at the University of Alberta. He first reported on the meteorite in March 1939 although it would seem that his studies were rather hindered by the distinct lack of information about who found it, when and where it was found! As a report written by Allan states, which is quoted in this book, “Details on the discovery of this meteorite are not known.” Through investigations Allan was able to at least determine some history for the specimen and reported: “Apparently this specimen was plowed up in the 1930s and for some years was regarded as a curio, and finally was brought into the Industrial Laboratories at the University of Alberta.” He also was able to ascertain a location for the farm where it had been discovered, but that was about it. Still despite its lack of find history, Edmonton (Canada) plays an important part in the story of the classification of meteorites and was included in seminal studies of iron meteorites by the group at UCLA. In contrast, the Iron Creek meteorite (Chapter 2) has a long history, known to generations of native Canadian peoples who venerated the stone as a sacred object. The accounts of the “discovery” of this meteorite by the white settlers and their subsequent removal of it make for rather poignant reading and serve as a reminder to us all that meteorites have long held a great importance and fascination for people, not just today in the days of sophisticated instrumentation and grant applications! From the various accounts of the meteorite’s Earthly history, Whyte suggests that there may, in fact, be two Iron Creek meteorites and postulates that there is a second mass, which may be buried or indeed was hidden by a native tribe to prevent it too being stolen. In a way, I hope he’s right. The description of the cultural history associated with the Iron Creek meteorite and the descriptions of more recent finds and falls, for me are probably the highlights of this book. The thorough and fascinating accounts of witnessed falls by both professional and nonprofessional observers are well-researched and engagingly written. The data produced through the organized programs such as the Meteorite Observation and Recovery Project (fully operational in 1971) and the earlier Associate Committee on Meteorites (part of the National Research Council of Canada) has proved invaluable in constraining not only the likely fall locations of meteorites from large fireballs but also fall phenomena and preatmospheric orbits of the parent meteoroids. The detailed accounts of these eye-witness observers not only attest to the enthusiasm and diligence of the Canadian public but also to the good will and beneficial relationships built up between local people and the Canadian authorities involved in the recovery and study of meteorites. This is only to the benefit of the science and provides a valuable lesson to those involved in meteorite study today.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207