Investigating Age Resolution in Laser Ablation Geochronology: Workshop on Data Handling in LA‐ICP‐MSU‐Th‐Pb Geochronology; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 12–13 July 2008
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA‐ICP‐MS) uranium‐thorium‐lead (U‐Th‐Pb) dating is an increasingly popular approach for determining the age of mineral grains and the timing of geological events. The spatial resolution offered by this technique allows detailed investigations of complex igneous and metamorphic processes, and the speed of data capture allows vast amounts of information to be gathered rapidly. Laser ablation U‐Th‐Pb dating is therefore becoming an increasingly influential technique to the geochronology community, providing cost‐effective and ready access to age data for laboratories and end users worldwide. However, complications in acquiring, processing, and interpreting data can lead to inaccurate age information entering the literature. With the numbers of practitioners expanding rapidly, the need to standardize approaches and resolve difficulties (particularly involving the subjectivity in processing laser ablation U‐Th‐Pb data) is becoming important.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it