MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strontium isotopic characterization of the Palmottu hydrosystem (Finland): water–rock interaction and geochemistry of groundwaters

2003· article· en· W2158537855 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Négrel, Joël Casanova, R. Blomqvist, Juha Kaija, Shaun K. Frape

Bibliographic record

VenueGeofluids · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBureau de Recherches Géologiques et MinièresU.S. Geological SurveyUniversité de StrasbourgEuropean Commission
KeywordsPlagioclaseIsotopes of strontiumStrontiumGeologyWeatheringGeochemistryLithologyFeldsparMineralogyBiotiteMeteoric waterGroundwaterChemistryQuartz

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Palmottu hydrosystem is located in a granitic host rock in southern Finland. Along well‐defined pathways in the fractured crystalline rock, strontium isotopes are used to trace the degree of water–rock interaction (WRI) and mixing processes in groundwaters. The87Sr/86Sr ratios range between 0.716910 and 0.735606 in the surface waters and between 0.719991 and 0.750787 in the groundwaters, but are between 0.720 and 0.735 in most of the samples. Moreover, the results show a lack of correlation between the water chemistries determining the classification into different water‐types (Na–Cl, Na–SO4, etc.) and the results of the strontium (Sr) contents and Sr isotopic ratios. From a WRI standpoint, this implies that the Sr behaviour is independent of the water chemistry; the occurrence of large87Sr/86Sr variations is site specific and mainly dependent on the lithology. A model to determine the87Sr/86Sr ratio of water after interaction with granite was developed. This model is based on the assumption that Sr was derived from three minerals: plagioclase, K‐feldspar and biotite. The results of the calculation indicate that around half of the water analysed within the Palmottu hydrosystem can be explained by the weathering of the granites. However, clearly lower87Sr/86Sr are observed in waters when compared to the calculated87Sr/86Sr and other sources of Sr, with low87Sr/86Sr, rather than the calculated granite–water interaction, which may be suspected. When comparing the87Sr/86Sr and ion ratios (Ca/Na, Mg/Na, Sr/Na, Cl/Na), the scattering of the data can be explained by the presence of four end‐members: a brine component (low87Sr/86Sr and Ca/Na ratios…), a deep granitic component (high87Sr/86Sr ratios and low Ca/Na ratios…), a subsurface component (intermediate87Sr/86Sr ratios associated with high Ca/Na ratios…) and a surface end‐member:snow and river drainage (low87Sr/86Sr and low Ca/Na ratios…). These extreme end‐members define a series of WRI‐mixing line within a rather complex hydrosystem.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeofluidsSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207