MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570595052 · doi:10.1130/g38458.1

Combining Nd isotopes in monazite and Hf isotopes in zircon to understand complex open-system processes in granitic magmas

2017· article· en· W2570595052 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Fisher, John M. Hanchar, Calvin F. Miller, Stacy Phillips, Jeffrey D. Vervoort, Martin J. Whitehouse

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonaziteZirconGeologyGeochemistryIsotopeEarth scienceNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mapping the age and trace element and Sm-Nd isotope compositions of monazite grains from a peraluminous Cretaceous granite using laser ablation–split stream analysis reveals a wide range in Nd isotope and rare earth element (REE) compositions within and between single grains. These data corroborate isotopic variability indicated by Hf isotope analysis of zircon in the same granite sample. The REE variations indicate that monazite grew during fractional crystallization. Hf and Nd isotopes indicate that the granitic magma was generated from at least two distinct Proterozoic sources of approximately the same age: one component that had highly radiogenic initial 176Hf/177Hf and 143Nd/144Nd and a second component that was notably less radiogenic. This study highlights the utility of in situ REE and Sm-Nd isotope data in monazite in magmatic systems. Further, it refines the zircon-based constraints on magmatic processes because of sensitivity of light REEs to fractional crystallization, lower probability of complications owing to inheritance, and smaller analytical volumes required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207