MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972106386 · doi:10.1029/2002eo000190

Probing the mantle: The story from carbonatites

2002· article· en· W1972106386 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Bell, G. R. Tilton

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsGeologyMantle (geology)BasaltSubductionOceanic crustGeochemistryLithosphereCarbonatiteCrustIsotope geochemistryMantle wedgeEarth scienceIsotopeSeismologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most exciting advances in Earth science in the last several decades has been our increased understanding of the structure and composition of the mantle. Seismic tomography and isotope geochemistry have been major players in those advances. The isotopic studies used basalts from ocean basins to minimize the problems of possible crustal contamination. Data from mid‐ocean ridge basalts (MORBs) and oceanic island basalts (OIBs) revealed a relatively detailed picture of the isotope geochemistry of the sub‐oceanic mantle [e.g. Hofmann, 1997] that led to the recognition of four principal magma components that define end‐member compositions. These are DMM, HIMU, EMI, and EM2 (see Table 1 for further details). All of these components except DMM have been attributed to subduction of different materials, such as oceanic and continental crust and lithosphere, down into the mantle. Several studies have indicated that the mantle is isotopically heterogeneous with heterogeneities that were probably established at least several billions of years ago.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.024
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0120.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 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

Citations120
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207