MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136540531 · doi:10.1002/9781118872079.ch5

Lithium Isotopic Signature of Hawaiian Basalts

2015· other· en· W2136540531 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren N. Harrison, Dominique Weis, Diane Hanano, Elspeth M. Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical monograph · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasaltGeologyGeochemistryIsotopic signatureSignature (topology)Lithium (medication)IsotopeEarth sciencePhysicsNuclear physicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

R ecycling of oceanic crust and sediment is a common mechanism to account for the presence of chemical heterogeneities observed in oceanic island basalts (OIBs). Because of the sizeable fractionation of lithium isotopes in low‐temperature environments, lithium serves as a tracer for recycled material in OIB sources. In this study, we analyzed 88 samples of Hawaiian basalt from all volcanic stages and 10 samples of altered oceanic crust from Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 843 for lithium isotopes. The measured range of lithium isotopes is δ 7 Li = 0.8‰ –5.7‰. Corr elations of lithium isotopes with radiogenic isotopes indicate lithium isotopes may be used to trace mantle sources in Hawaiian lavas. Loa trend shield volcanoes appear to show lower δ 7 Li, differentiating between the Loa and Kea geochemical trends. Similarly, postshield lavas have lower δ 7 Li than shield lavas. In Hawaiian basalts, lithium isotopes help distinguish between Loa source components: Ko‘olau Makapu‘u shield stage lavas may have between 1% and 5% of a carbonate input and Hualālai postshield and shield lavas may reflect incorporation of subduction eroded lower continental crust. Comparison of this data set with worldwide OIB published lithium isotopic data indicates that the lithium isotopic system behaves systematically on a mantlewide scale.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical monographSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207