MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107145927 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.42.3.897

MICROTEXTURAL AND POWDER-DIFFRACTION STUDY OF ANALCIME PHENOCRYSTS IN VOLCANIC ROCKS OF THE CROWSNEST FORMATION, SOUTHERN ALBERTA, CANADA

2004· article· en· W2107145927 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Robert W. Luth, Melissa Bowerman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnalcimeLeucitePhenocrystCrystallizationGeologyPseudomorphGeochemistryParagenesisIgneous rockMineralogyVolcanoMaterials scienceVolcanic rockChemical engineeringChemistryZeoliteMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results of powder X-ray-diffraction and microstructural studies of analcime from the volcanic rocks of the Crowsnest Formation, Alberta, Canada. The powder X-ray diffractogram of only one of the analcime samples contains a peak inconsistent with the cubic symmetry that has been attributed to conversion from leucite. We re-evaluate this criterion, and suggest that primary igneous analcime may be cubic as well; caution thus is required in deducing paragenesis from crystal symmetry. A more compelling argument for the primary nature of the analcime is that fresh fracture-surfaces are clean and planar, the characteristics suggested by previous workers to be indicative of crystallization from a melt or fluid. The fracture surfaces lack the porous microstructure previously attributed to the conversion of leucite to analcime.

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)0.000
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 score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicX-ray Diffraction in CrystallographyFrench-language works237,207