Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| October 01, 2007 Amphiboles in the Igneous Environment Robert F. Martin Robert F. Martin Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, 3450 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada, bobm@eps.mcgill.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Robert F. Martin Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, 3450 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada, bobm@eps.mcgill.ca Publisher: Mineralogical Society of America First Online: 09 Mar 2017 © The Mineralogical Society Of America Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry (2007) 67 (1): 323–358. https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2007.67.9 Article history First Online: 09 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Robert F. Martin; Amphiboles in the Igneous Environment. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 2007;; 67 (1): 323–358. doi: https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2007.67.9 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyReviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry Search Advanced Search The time is ripe for a fresh inventory of occurrences of amphibole-group minerals in igneous rocks. Here, I build on the available resources, for example on the review of Wones and Gilbert (1982) in volume 9B of the RiMG series. They entitled their chapter "Amphiboles in the Igneous Environment." I adopt the same title, but intend to make the scope of my review somewhat broader by including non-igneous rocks formed in the igneous environments. Much has been written about occurrences of amphibole-group minerals over the last quarter of a century, much of it ably summarized by Deer et al. (1997)... You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".