MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515249066

Precious metal abundances in selected iron meteorites; in-situ AMS measurements of the six platinum-group elements plus gold.

2006· article· en· W2515249066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Graham C. Wilson, J. C. Rucklidge, L.R. Kilius, Gang Jian Ding, R.G. Cresswell

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiocarbon · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlatinum groupKamaciteMeteoritePlatinumIron meteoriteChondriteMetalChemistryPrecious metalTroiliteGeologyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyAstrobiologyPhysicsEnvironmental chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have measured the abundances of seven precious metals in NiFe phases (kamacite and plessite) in six iron meteorites. These in-situ analyses, obtained by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) on small polished samples previously characterized by electron microprobe techniques, constrain the distribution of the rare siderophile elements. Within our set of irons, a small but varied suite, concentrations measured by AMS vary by factors of 9–13 for Au, Pd, Pt, Rh and Ru, and by factors of 90 and 250 for Ir and Os respectively. Data are presented for all six platinum group elements (PGE) plus gold. The AMS data suggest a variation in overall precious-metal abundances of a factor of 16 between the most-enriched (Negrillos, Σ PGE + Au = 270 ppm) and the least-enriched (Welland, 16–19 ppm). A clear illustration of the use of AMS data for provenance studies of meteoritic iron is presented for the Welland IIIA iron, an 1888 find from Ontario. Few published data are available for Welland: comparison of a type sample with a smaller piece of unknown metal, with respect to chondrite-normalized PGE patterns, major-element chemistry and textures of the metals, strongly support a suggestion that the latter is a fragment of the same iron.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiocarbonSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207