MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058558324 · doi:10.1130/g31112.1

Reading the mineral record of fluid composition from element partitioning

2010· article· en· W2058558324 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent van Hinsberg, Artas Migdisov, Anthony E. Williams‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsCitationLibrary scienceComputer scienceIconInformation retrievalReading (process)Mineral explorationWorld Wide WebGeologyGeochemistryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Article| September 01, 2010 Reading the mineral record of fluid composition from element partitioning Vincent J. van Hinsberg; Vincent J. van Hinsberg * Hydrothermal Geochemistry Group, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada *E-mail: V.J.vanHinsberg@gmx.net. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Artasches A. Migdisov; Artasches A. Migdisov Hydrothermal Geochemistry Group, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Anthony E. Williams-Jones Anthony E. Williams-Jones Hydrothermal Geochemistry Group, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Geology (2010) 38 (9): 847–850. https://doi.org/10.1130/G31112.1 Article history received: 10 Feb 2010 rev-recd: 16 Apr 2010 accepted: 29 Apr 2010 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 Vincent J. van Hinsberg, Artasches A. Migdisov, Anthony E. Williams-Jones; Reading the mineral record of fluid composition from element partitioning. Geology 2010;; 38 (9): 847–850. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G31112.1 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 SocietyGeology Search Advanced Search Abstract Earth is the "blue planet," with more than 70% of its surface covered in water and the equivalent of up to four oceans of water in its interior. This abundance of water has a profound impact on the processes that shape our planet as well as the development of the organisms that inhabit it. To understand this impact, it is necessary to know the properties and compositions of this fluid. At present, this information is largely unavailable, because direct samples of fluid are rare, especially for early Earth and Earth's interior, and other estimators are semiquantitative, at best. Here we propose a different approach in which the composition of the fluid is reconstructed from that of minerals, based on the characteristic trace element partitioning between minerals and aqueous fluids. We show experimentally that this partitioning is systematic and obeys lattice-strain theory. It depends strongly on element complexation in the fluid, but this dependence is predictable and can be accommodated. Unlike fluids, minerals with preserved compositions are readily available in the geological record, and this approach therefore provides a powerful and widely applicable tool to reconstruct a quantitative record of fluid composition for the full range of Earth environments and for its earliest history. 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 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)0.003
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207