Influence of Potsdam sandstone on the trace element signatures of some 19th‐century American and Canadian glass: Redwood, Redford, Mallorytown, and Como–Hudson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Potsdam sandstone from quarries and outcrops near 19th‐century glassworks sites in Redwood, NY, and Saranac, NY, Mallorytown, ON, and Como and Hudson, QC, commonly contains _97% silica, so in terms of its purity can compete with other historical producers of silica sand (e.g., Cheshire quartzite, MA; southern New Jersey sand). Exploratory analysis of trace element data using multidimensional scaling (MDS) shows that geographically distinct sources of Potsdam sandstone can be distinguished from one another and from competing sources of silica sand, particularly in terms of high field strength elements (e.g., Nb, Y, Ti, Zr), the rare earth elements, and radioactive elements (U, Th), and this geochemical signature is carried through to the glass it was used to manufacture. Other trace elements (e.g., Ba, Sr, Rb) are concentrated in various batch ingredients (e.g., limestone, alkali fluxes). The Hf/Nb, La/Ce, Nb/Th, and La/Zr ratios for each type of glass and nearby Potsdam sandstone sources cluster together in distinct fields on MDS plots. These data confirm the use of Potsdam sandstone in these important historical glassworks, and show that except for material sampled from neighboring communities (Mallorytown and Redwood), trace elements can be used to identify specific sources of silica historically used by the glassmaking industry. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".