MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208975454 · doi:10.2138/am-2000-8-901

Measurement of crystal size distributions

2000· article· en· W2208975454 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

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
KeywordsCrystal (programming language)Basis (linear algebra)Materials sciencePopulationMineralogyCrystallographyChemistryGeometryMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of crystal size distributions (CSD) can reveal much about how rocks solidify and under what conditions. Data from two-dimensional sections can be readily acquired at many different scales, from electron microscope images, thin sections, slabs, outcrops, and so on, but the conversion to true, three-dimensional values is complex. The widely used Wager method does not have a good theoretical basis and does not give accurate results. A modification of the Saltikov correction method is proposed here that is more accurate and can account for different crystal shapes and fabrics. Population densities determined by this method differ by factors of 0.02 to 100 from those determined by the Wager method. Published CSDs determined using other methods can be recalculated if the crystal shape and fabric parameters can be estimated. The method has been incorporated into a new program, CSDCorrections.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · 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