MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886427712 · doi:10.1029/2005gc001157

Strategies for successful U‐Th dating of paleolake carbonates: An example from the Bolivian Altiplano

2006· article· en· W1886427712 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christa Placzek, P. Jonathan Patchett, Jay Quade, J. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of SaskatchewanNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyCarbonatePetrographyTufaIsochronSiliciclasticGeochemistrySilicicMineralogyPaleontologySedimentary depositional environmentBasalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report over 90 U‐Th dates from carbonates deposited around paleolakes on the Bolivian Altiplano. Petrographic and chemical data for tufas and the siliciclastic detritus contained within them allow (1) assessment of possible diagenetic effects, (2) a development of a strategy for selection of carbonate samples with low initial Th contents, and (3) assessment of the uncertainty due to initial Th. This strategy allows us to produce precise U‐Th dates from lacustrine carbonates. The principal consideration in dating such carbonates is the composition and quantity of initial Th incorporated into the carbonate, and additional uncertainty is introduced because this initial Th may have two sources in lacustrine deposits. Isochron plots, measured ( 230 Th/ 232 Th), and X‐ray diffraction and trace element chemistry of silicic residues all favor regional soil and dust as the sole source of initial Th in carbonates from the Bolivian Altiplano, a situation that simplifies single‐sample dating of Altiplano carbonates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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