MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144662378 · doi:10.2138/rmg.2000.39.12

Radiation-Induced Amorphization

2000· article· en· W2144662378 on OpenAlexaff
Rodney C. Ewing, A. Meldrum, L. Wang, S. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear materials and radiation effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

### History and applications The earliest description of a change in mineral property caused by radiation-damage was by Jons Jacob Berzelius in 1814. Berzelius, a Swedish physician and mineral chemist, was certainly one of the most eminent scientists of his century, discovering the elements cerium, selenium and thorium. He discovered that some U- and Th-bearing minerals glowed on moderate heating, releasing, sometimes violently, large amounts of energy. This “pyrognomic” behavior was first observed in gadolinite, (REE)2FeBe2Si2O10, as it released stored energy. Today, this same type of catastrophic energy release is a significant concern in reactor safety where rapid energy release from neutron-irradiated graphite can lead to a rise in temperature and the rupture of fuel elements. In 1893, Brogger defined “metamikte” in an encyclopedia entry for amorphous materials. Metamict minerals were believed to have been previously crystalline, as judged by well-formed crystal faces, but had a characteristic glass-like, conchoidal fracture and were optically isotropic. Prior to the discovery of radioactivity by Becquerel in 1896, the metamict state was not recognized as a radiation-induced transformation. Hamberg (1914) was the first to suggest that metamictization is a radiation-induced, periodic-to-aperiodic transformation caused by α-particles that originate from the constituent radionuclides in the uranium and thorium decay-series. A detailed summary of the history of studies of radiation effects in minerals can be found in Ewing (1994). In the 1950s, interest in metamict minerals was revived. Adolf Pabst rescued the term “metamict” from obscurity in his presidential address to the Mineralogical Society of America in 1951 (Pabst 1952). However, mineralogists paid limited attention to nuclear effects in minerals or the general importance of radiation effects in modifying the properties of materials. By the early 1940s, E.P. Wigner already had anticipated that the intense neutron flux in the Hanford Production reactors …

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations131
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Mineralogy and GeochemistrySame topicNuclear materials and radiation effectsFrench-language works237,207