MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106305658 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0706541105

Estimating terrestrial uranium and thorium by antineutrino flux measurements

2008· article· en· W2106305658 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen T. Dye, E. Guillian

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUraniumThoriumFlux (metallurgy)Mantle (geology)Earth scienceEnvironmental scienceCrustEarth (classical element)Electron neutrinoGeologyGeochemistryNeutrinoPhysicsNuclear physicsChemistryNeutrino oscillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uranium and thorium within the Earth produce a major portion of terrestrial heat along with a measurable flux of electron antineutrinos. These elements are key components in geophysical and geochemical models. Their quantity and distribution drive the dynamics, define the thermal history, and are a consequence of the differentiation of the Earth. Knowledge of uranium and thorium concentrations in geological reservoirs relies largely on geochemical model calculations. This article describes the methods and criteria to experimentally determine average concentrations of uranium and thorium in the continental crust and in the mantle by using site-specific measurements of the terrestrial antineutrino flux. Optimal, model-independent determinations involve significant exposures of antineutrino detectors remote from nuclear reactors at both a midcontinental and a midoceanic site. This would require major, new antineutrino detection projects. The results of such projects could yield a greatly improved understanding of the deep interior of the Earth.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207