MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079605511 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.44.4.967

CONSTRAINTS ON THE GENESIS OF FERRIAN ILLITE AND ALUMINUM-RICH GLAUCONITE: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SEDIMENTOLOGY AND ISOTOPIC STUDIES

2006· article· en· W2079605511 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hugues Longuépée, Pierre A. Cousineau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentologyGlauconiteGeologyIlliteGeochemistryMineralogyClay minerals

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term glauconite covers a series of iron-rich minerals that form in the upper layer of sediments of the sea bottom in locations where sediment input is low. Because of its potassium content and the process of its formation, it is one of few minerals that can be used in both sequence stratigraphy and in the determination of sedimentation age. Although aluminum-rich glauconite has been identified in several locations, the way it forms remains relatively unknown. A study of the ferrian illite from the Cambrian Anse Maranda Formation shows that, according to the present models for the formation of glauconite and diagenesis, the Al-for- Fe substitution responsible for the genesis of Al-rich glauconite occurs during early burial. In order to maintain charge balance while replacing Fe2+ and Mg2+ by Al3+ at the octahedral site, there is an expulsion of K, as high as 31.6% of the measured K2O. This loss is important when evaluating the time needed to form glauconite and interpreting the occurrence of Fe-rich illite; it must be accounted for when using the K–Ar system, for either dating or in diagenetic studies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207