Testing variations within the Tagish Lake meteorite—<scp>II</scp>: Whole‐rock geochemistry of pristine samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Four pristine specimens of the Tagish Lake C2 chondrite meteorite were previously determined through mineralogy, petrology, and organic chemistry to have been affected by aqueous alteration in the order (from least to most altered) TL5b < TL11h < TL11i, and TL11v as a mixture of the other specimens (Herd et al. ; Blinova et al. ). Here, we report the whole‐rock data for a total of 65 elements for the same four Tagish Lake samples as determined by ICP‐MS and ICP‐AES (utilizing the Parr bomb digestion method on small samples, approximately 50 mg), and by INAA. Our data demonstrate that the determined aqueous alteration sequence has a positive correlation with trace elements, such as K and Br that are mobile during aqueous alteration, which appear to be controlled by an increase of phyllosilicates from least to most altered samples. Yet, the homogeneity of other elements suggests that elemental mass transfer occurred on a localized scale and aqueous alteration was isochemical for these elements, similar to other primitive carbonaceous chondrites. By plotting data from three samples (TL5b, TL11h, and TL11i) on a Zn/Mn versus Sc/Mn diagram, we also confirm that the Tagish Lake meteorite is not a simple mixture of CI and CM material.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".