MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166300301 · doi:10.1346/ccmn.2001.0490504

Baseline Studies of the Clay Minerals Society Source Clays: Chemical Analyses of Major Elements

2001· article· en· W2166300301 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueClays and Clay Minerals · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of SaskatchewanU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiogeosciencesClay mineralsBaseline (sea)GeochemistryGeologyEnvironmental chemistryExpansive clayMineralogyEnvironmental scienceChemistryEarth scienceSoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical analysis is an essential step to establish the nature of minerals (Newman, 1987). The techniques used in rock and mineral analyses are generally valid for the analyses of clays. Additional information from other analytical techniques, which are mentioned here, is needed for accurate interpretation of the chemical analysis results of major elements (Gabis, 1979). In traditional chemical analyses, the aim is to obtain accurate analyses for all elements present in the sample, in such a way that the sum of elements expressed as oxides, including hydration and structural water, approaches the sample weight as closely as possible.

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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.288 · 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