MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978334516 · doi:10.3749/canmin.49.5.1199

THE WORLD'S OLDEST OBSERVED PRIMARY URANINITE

2011· article· en· W1978334516 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ryan Sharpe, Mostafa Fayek

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUraniniteGeologyPrimary (astronomy)GeochemistryMineralogyMaterials scienceUraniumMetallurgyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), an in situ micro-analytical technique, was used to date uraninite from the Huron Claim pegmatite in southeastern Manitoba. Detailed petrography shows that there are zones in the uraninite grains that have undergone varying degrees of alteration. Altered and relatively unaltered zones were analyzed on the scale of a few micrometers. In situ U–Pb isotopic analysis shows that the uraninite from the Huron Claim pegmatite is highly discordant (>5%) with an upper intercept of 2575 ± 38 Ma. Lead (207Pb/206Pb) isotope ages range from 2514 ± 3 to 2573 ± 18 Ma, with an average age of 2550 ± 17 Ma. Therefore, the crystallization age of the uraninite is interpreted to be 2575 ± 38 Ma. A comparison of this age with uraninite from other deposits suggests that the Huron Claim pegmatite uraninite is currently the oldest known example of primary uraninite. Evidence for the presence of very old primary uraninite is an important part of the global evolution of uranium minerals. Detrital accumulations such as the Witwatersrand and Elliot Lake deposits have inferred ages much greater than 2.2 Ga. However, no primary uraninite approaches the age of these deposits except for the Huron Claim uraninite.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.127 · 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207