MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061944692 · doi:10.1063/1.3597673

Disaggregating meteorites by automated freeze thaw

2011· article· en· W2061944692 on OpenAlexaff
C. R. J. Charles

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoriteChondruleLiquid nitrogenChondriteMaterials scienceVialMineralogyGeologyChemistryAstrobiologyChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automated freeze-thaw (AFT) instrument for disaggregating meteorites is described. Meteorite samples are immersed in 18.2 MΩ water and hermetically sealed in a clean 30 ml Teflon vial. This vial and its contents are dipped between baths of liquid nitrogen and hot water over a number of cycles by a dual-stepper motor system controlled by LabView. Uniform and periodic intervals of freezing and thawing induce multiple expansions and contractions, such that cracks propagate along natural flaws in the meteorite for a sufficient number of AFT cycles. For the CR2 chondrite NWA801, the boundaries between different phases (i.e., silicates, metal, matrix) became progressively weaker and allowed for an efficient recovery of 500 individual chondrules and chondrule fragments spanning 0.2-4.7 mm diameters after 243 AFT cycles over 103.3 h. Further FT experiments on a basalt analog showed that the time required for freezing and thawing the same number of cycles can be reduced by a factor of ∼4.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207