method for quickly estimating the equivalent dose in optical dating of K-feldspar
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Received 18 March 2004; in final form 25 May 2004) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction In optical dating, before one can actually determine an age, the sample must go through several processes of washing, drying and grain selection that take considerable time. It sometimes happens that the sample collected has an optical age very much larger than expected. This can happen for example if sampling had yielded material from below a sand dune rather than from the dune itself as intended; it would also occur if the sample desired was obtained, but was not bleached before burial. The purpose of the experiment described below was to determine whether or not a useful preliminary estimation of a sample's equivalent dose and age could be obtained quickly. Raw sand was used for the aliquots, which were measured, given a radiation dose, heated, measured once more, and the equivalent dose estimated. It is found that this method can save grain preparation time and effort if a sample is not what it is thought to be, and may replace the usual pilot experiment to determine the appropriate radiation doses to give prepared grains for optical dating.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it