Shallow Mantle Composition and Dynamics: Fifth International Orogenic Lherzolite Conference: Foreword
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The First International Orogenic Lherzolite Conference was held in Montpellier, France, in 1990 (Menzies et al., 1991). Subsequent Orogenic Lherzolite Conferences were held in Granada, Spain in 1995, Pavia, Italy in 1999 and Samani, Japan in 2002. A vital aspect of all these meetings was the opportunity to visit nearby exposures of mantle peridotites: to date, participants have visited Lherz in France; Baldissero, Balmuccia, Erro Tobio, Finero, Lanzo and Liguria in Italy; Ronda in Spain; Beni Bousera in Morocco; and Horoman in Hokkaido, Japan. Peer-reviewed papers from all four conferences were published in the Journal of Petrology in 1991, 2001 and 2004 and, in one instance, in Chemical Geology in 1996. The Fifth Lherzolite Conference was held in Shasta City, California in September 2008. The conference was sponsored as a Chapman Conference by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which also provided local logistical assistance. Funding for participants was provided by the AGU, US NSF Ridge Program, the NSF Earth Sciences Division, the US Science Support Program of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, the Royal Society UK and the Lithosphere–Asthenosphere Interactions task force of the International Lithosphere Program. Present, from 14 countries, were 108 attendees including 36 students and 11 postdoctoral researchers. Sixty-six oral presentations and 67 posters were presented during the 5 day meeting. As is the tradition, field trips to classic mantle peridotite localities were incorporated into the program, including a pre-meeting trip to the Josephine peridotite led by Peter Kelemen, Henry Dick, and Greg Hirth for about 50 people; a mid-week field trip for all participants, led by Tim Grove and Christy Till; and a 2 day, post-meeting trip to the Trinity peridotite for about 50 people, led by Peter Kelemen, Francoise Boudier, and Kolya Stremmel.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".