MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119784942 · doi:10.5539/esr.v4n2p74

Geochemical maturity of pocket beach sands from the San’in region of southwest Japan

2015· article· en· W2119784942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bah Mamadou Lamine Malick, Hiroaki Ishiga

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Science Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShimane UniversityMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNational Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
KeywordsGeologyQuartzFeldsparGeochemistryCrustIgneous rockMaturity (psychological)GeomorphologyMineralogyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major and trace elements of ninety-two coastal beach sands samples, collected along the San’in region of southwest Japan, were determined by X-ray fluorescence to define their geochemical characteristics. These included Yamaguchi (n=27), Shimane (n=50), and Tottori (n=15) beach sands samples. Data of beach sands from Shimane and Tottori normalised averages show approaching patterns relative to the upper crust of the Japan arc UCJAN, and upper continental crust UCCN, reflecting the composition of the source rocks that dominate their watersheds. In contrast the normalised patterns for most elements of Yamaguchi beach sands samples are less than 1 except for CaO, Sr, and Th. The primary component of beach sands from Shimane is quartz, or silica (SiO2), Sands from Tottori are composed essentially of weathered particles of feldspar, and in contrast components of biogenic and quartz-rich sands from Yamaguchi are primarily shell fragments, quartz, and igneous rock.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Science ResearchSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207