Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| August 01, 2008 Ore Deposits of the Platinum-Group Elements James E. Mungall; James E. Mungall Department of Geology, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3B1, Canada E-mail: mungall@geology.utoronto.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Anthony J. Naldrett Anthony J. Naldrett Department of Geology, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3B1, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Elements (2008) 4 (4): 253–258. https://doi.org/10.2113/GSELEMENTS.4.4.253 Article history first online: 09 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 James E. Mungall, Anthony J. Naldrett; Ore Deposits of the Platinum-Group Elements. Elements 2008;; 4 (4): 253–258. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/GSELEMENTS.4.4.253 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 SocietyElements Search Advanced Search Abstract The formation of ore deposits of the platinum-group elements (PGE) requires that their concentrations be raised about four orders of magnitude above typical continental crustal abundances. Such extreme enrichment relies principally on the extraction capacity of sulfide liquid, which sequesters the PGE from silicate magmas. Specific aspects of PGE ore formation are still highly controversial, however, including the role of hydrothermal fluids. The majority of the world's PGE reserves are held in a handful of deposits, most of which occur within the unique Bushveld Complex of South Africa. 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".