MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464629293 · doi:10.2138/am.2005.403r

REPLY TO CAPITANIO 2005: Mineralogic and bulk rock composition of Italian wollastonite- and melilite-bearing paralava and clinker: Further evidence of their pyrometamorphic nature

2005· article· en· W2464629293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leone Melluso

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeliliteWollastoniteGeologyGeochemistrySiliciclasticOutcropMineralogyGrossularCarbonateMetamorphic rockGeomorphologyChemistrySedimentary depositional environmentStructural basinPaleontologyMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two small outcrops of wollastonite- and melilite-bearing paralavas, with a pyrometamorphic genesis, have been found along the Apennine chain, in Central Italy, at the localities of Colle Fabbri and Ricetto. Recent papers added new data strengthening the hypothesis that the Ricetto wollastonite- and melilite-bearing rocks were produced by pyrometamorphism of carbonate-rich siliciclastic sedimentary rocks. In addition, these new papers depicted the Ricetto paralavas as having wide mineralogical and compositional variations due to liquid immiscibility and/or carbonate devolatilization, paralleling the trend observed for other paralavas (e.g., Colle Fabbri, Italy; British Columbia, Canada; Wyoming, U.S.A.; etc.). The source of heat for inducing pyrometamorphism was not investigated in the original paper, which was the subject of the comment. Capitanio et al. (2004), on the basis of 14 C age determination and of a mineralogical study, argued convincingly that heat was supplied to the Ricetto rocks by wood-combustion for charcoal production.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207