MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986876280 · doi:10.2113/gsecongeo.99.5.1027

A TEXTURAL AND GEOCHEMICAL GUIDE TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF HYDROTHERMAL MONAZITE: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF SAMPLES FOR DATING EPIGENETIC HYDROTHERMAL ORE DEPOSITS

2004· article· en· W1986876280 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Geology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonaziteHydrothermal circulationGeologyIgneous rockGeochemistryMineralMetamorphic rockMineralogyZirconPaleontologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrothermal monazite is one of the most reliable geochronometers for U-Pb dating of epigenetic or hydrothermal ore deposits because its blocking temperature, at ca.700°C, is higher than that of most metamorphic conditions. Although igneous monazite is routinely used for age dating igneous rocks, only a few ore deposits have been dated by hydrothermal monazite. This is due to the similar morphology of hydrothermal and igneous monazite, which prevents the reliable distinction of hydrothermal monazite, in particular. We demonstrate that hydrothermal monazite can be distinguished from igneous monazite by its unique geochemical signature, its local abundance, and to common association with hydrothermal mineral assemblages. Our data and the data of others reported in the literature suggest that the low ThO 2 content of hydrothermal monazite (0–1 wt %) is distinct from that of igneous monazite (3 to >5 wt %) and may be used to determine their genesis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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