MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135071669 · doi:10.2478/s13386-012-0010-8

From the discovery of radioactivity to the development of the K-Ar dating method

2012· article· en· W2135071669 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochronometria · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTwentieth Century Scientific Developments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryUniwersytet Marii Curie-SkłodowskiejIowa State UniversityUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsRadiometric datingK–Ar datingRadiumCuriePotassiumPoloniumIsotopeRadiochemistryNatural radioactivityGeologyChemistryMineralogyNuclear physicsGeochemistryPhysicsCurie temperatureRadionuclide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper I try to explain why the potassium-argon dating method was developed much later than other radiometric methods (like U-He and U-Pb), which were established at the beginning of the 20th century. In fact the pioneering paper by Aldrich and Nier (1948) was published 50 years after the discovery of polonium and radium, when nearly all the details concerning potassium isotopes and radioactivity of potassium-40 had been investigated. The role of Marie Curie’s concept of the nature of radioactivity in the discovery of the radioactivity of potassium is emphasized.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.218 · 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