MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089621327 · doi:10.1029/2006gl027893

Thermal infrared reflectance and emission spectroscopy of quartzofeldspathic glasses

2007· article· en· W2089621327 on OpenAlexaff
J. M. Byrnes, M. S. Ramsey, P. L. King, Rachel J. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmorphous solidMaterials scienceMineralogyMars Exploration ProgramInfraredMineralSpectroscopyInfrared spectroscopySpectral lineAstrobiologyOpticsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)GeologyChemistryCrystallographyPhysicsEnvironmental chemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This investigation seeks to better understand the thermal infrared (TIR) spectral characteristics of naturally‐occurring amorphous materials through laboratory synthesis and analysis of glasses. Because spectra of glass phases differ markedly from their mineral counterparts, examination of glasses is important to accurately determine the composition of amorphous surface materials using remote sensing datasets. Quantitatively characterizing TIR (5–25 μ m) spectral changes that accompany structural changes between glasses and mineral crystals provides the means to understand natural glasses on Earth and Mars. A suite of glasses with compositions analogous to common terrestrial volcanic glasses was created and analyzed using TIR reflectance and emission techniques. Documented spectral characteristics provide a basis for comparison with TIR spectra of other amorphous materials (glasses, clays, etc.). Our results provide the means to better detect and characterize glasses associated with terrestrial volcanoes, as well as contribute toward understanding the nature of amorphous silicates detected on Mars.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207