MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158955452 · doi:10.1017/s1473550409990322

Microstructure and elemental composition of the Tagish Lake meteorite and its astrobiological implications

2009· article· en· W2158955452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kani Rauf, A.C. Hann, Chandra Wickramasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Astrobiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoriteChondruleParent bodyChondriteAstrobiologyOrganic matterPopulationHydrothermal circulationCarbonaceous chondriteMicrostructureCarbon fibersChemistryMineralogyGeologyMaterials scienceCrystallographyPhysicsPaleontologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tagish Lake meteorite, which fell in January 2000 in Canada, has provided a sample of pristine cosmic materials for laboratory studies. It is made up of loosely formed aggregates, making it one of the most friable carbonaceous chondrites. Its complex structure is composed of plaquettes of crystalized minerals, hexagon-shaped metals, chondrules and granules, all of which are embedded in a matrix of fine grains and fibril-like materials. Those components with sizes larger than 250 nm in diameter are affected to varying degrees by hydrothermal reactions, whereas the majority of smaller bodies (<350 nm in diameter) appear unscathed despite severe aqueous alterations on the parent body. A high population of granules (100–300 nm in diameter) consist of a wall (20–40 nm in thickness) and a larger core; the former is rich in organic elements, such as carbon, oxygen and sulfur, and the core contains Ni-Fe-Mg rich silicates. The organic matter has aromatic and aliphatic characteristics, and such evidence suggests that the granules may be the carriers of large organic species with distinct astrobiological implications.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AstrobiologySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207