Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| January 02, 2003 Detrital Zircon Analysis of the Sedimentary Record Christopher M. Fedo; Christopher M. Fedo Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Keith N. Sircombe; Keith N. Sircombe Tectonics Special Research Centre, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, M.004, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 Australia Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Robert H. Rainbird Robert H. Rainbird Geological Survey of Canada, 601 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E8 Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry (2003) 53 (1): 277–303. https://doi.org/10.2113/0530277 Article history first online: 03 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Christopher M. Fedo, Keith N. Sircombe, Robert H. Rainbird; Detrital Zircon Analysis of the Sedimentary Record. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 2003;; 53 (1): 277–303. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/0530277 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyReviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry Search Advanced Search The composition of “heavy,” or accessory, detrital minerals in sediments and sedimentary rocks has been a topic of quantitative study for at least the last seventy years, beginning with the first issue of the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology in May 1931 (Tyler 1931, Pentland 1931). Zircon has since played a prominent and complex role in interpreting the composition and history of modern and ancient sediments. Because zircon is highly refractory at Earth’s surface, it occurs in virtually all sedimentary deposits and so provides a critical link in understanding the source history of a deposit. Twenhofel (1941),... You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".