MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990112837 · doi:10.2343/geochemj.1.0033

Estimate of mole sulfate ratios in magmatic rocks

2009· article· en· W1990112837 on OpenAlexafffund
Xue-Ming Yang, David R. Lentz

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOCHEMICAL JOURNAL · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSulfateIgneous rockGeologySulfurSulfideGeochemistryFractionationδ34SSulfide mineralsIsotopes of sulfurIsotopeMole fractionIsotope fractionationMineralogyMineralChemistryPyriteFluid inclusionsQuartz

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a numerical method to estimate the mole fractions of sulfate species in magmatic rocks using sulfur isotopes, which can be illustrated in a δ-δ diagram. The mole sulfate ratio in an igneous rock sample can be calculated from the δ34Srock value of the whole-rock sample and the δ34Ssulfide (or δ34Ssulfate) value of a sulfide and (or) a sulfate mineral (species) in the sample on the basis of S-isotope fractionation and mass balance under the conditions of magmatic equilibrium. This method can be used to test if magmatic equilibrium between sulfate and sulfide species in magmatic rocks is retained, and to predict the δ34S value of one of them at a certain temperature if sulfur isotopic equilibrium is maintained. The initial sulfur isotope composition of the system in question may be estimated based on a set of samples from an igneous suite. Mole sulfate ratio in the magmatic rocks is then used to estimate redox conditions under which they are formed. This practice is important in understanding the genesis of mineral deposits associated with magmatic rocks.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGEOCHEMICAL JOURNALSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207