MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129309249 · doi:10.1002/gea.20346

The effects of surface weathering on the geochemical analysis of archaeological lithic samples using non‐destructive polarized energy dispersive XRF

2011· article· en· W2129309249 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Gauthier, Adrian L. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoarchaeology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeatheringArtifact (error)GeologyMineralogyArchaeologyTrace elementGeochemistryGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to show the effects of lithic artifact surface weathering on whole rock non‐destructive polarized energy dispersive X‐ray fluorescence (P‐ED‐XRF) major and trace element determinations. Chemical results for a weathered and subsequently mechanically ground subset of New Hampshire Ossipee archaeological flakes, cataloged as hornfels, show that both groups of elements are variably affected by weathering. A graphic approach is developed and proposed to highlight the role and importance of immobile elements. A case is made and an analytical method is proposed for the routine use of P‐ED‐XRF spectrometers to determine the chemical makeup of lithic artifacts and therefore provide a data set compatible with existing geochemical databases and literature. The use of specific variation diagrams is adopted to portray the weathering trend. Internationally approved geochemical rock type diagrams are used to correct the rock type previously assigned to Ossipee artifacts and in turn narrow down potential quarry sources. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoarchaeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207