MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geochemical Insight from Nonlinear Optical Studies of Mineral–Water Interfaces

2016· article· en· W1830607021 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Physical Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNonlinear systemNonlinear opticalDissolutionMineral waterMineralSpectroscopySecond-harmonic generationTRACE (psycholinguistics)Interface (matter)AdsorptionComputer scienceMaterials scienceChemical physicsNanotechnologyChemistryPhysicsOpticsPhysical chemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physics and chemistry of mineral-water interfaces are complex, even in idealized systems. Our need to understand this complexity is driven by both pure and applied sciences, that is, by the need for basic understanding of earth systems and for the knowledge to mitigate our influences upon them. The second-order nonlinear optical techniques of second-harmonic generation and sum-frequency generation spectroscopy have proven adept at probing these types of interfaces. This review focuses on the contributions to geochemistry made by nonlinear optical methods. The types of questions probed have included a basic description of the structure adopted by water molecules at the mineral interface, how flow and porosity affect this structure, adsorption of trace metal and organic species, and dissolution mechanisms. We also discuss directions and challenges that lie ahead and the outlook for the continued use of nonlinear optical methods for studies of mineral-water boundaries.

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.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.292 · 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