MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077275603 · doi:10.1139/e01-013

Ubiquity of anomalous fading in K-feldspars and the measurement and correction for it in optical dating

2001· article· en· W2077275603 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
D. J. Huntley, Michel Lamothe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFadingLogarithmIrradiationLuminescenceOptically stimulated luminescenceMineralogyThermoluminescence datingGeologyPhysicsOpticsStatisticsMathematicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anomalous-fading rates were measured in K-feldspars separated from 49 sediment samples, mainly from North America. The intensity of the optically stimulated luminescence was found to decrease linearly with the logarithm of time since irradiation between 2 days and ~1 year of storage at room temperature. Anomalous-fading rates ranged from 2% to 10% per decade, a decade being a factor of 10 in time since irradiation. The sample provenances were sufficiently varied that anomalous fading appears to be ubiquitous. We have experimented with correction of optical ages for anomalous fading on the assumption that the observed fading can be extrapolated a further four decades in time. The corrected ages are in satisfactory agreement with independent ages. These results are restricted to the low-dose region of the dose response and are not expected to be applicable to samples older than ~20–50 ka.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations1,100
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207