MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587042721 · doi:10.1134/s1075701516070059

Mineral systems, their types, and distribution in nature. I. Khibiny, Lovozero, and the Mont Saint-Hilaire

2016· article· en· W2587042721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. Г. Кривовичев, M. V. Charykova

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology of Ore Deposits · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMineral resource classificationGeochemistryMineralChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In accordance with the set of species-defining chemical elements in minerals, n -component systems (where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) for all mineral species (4952) known to 2014 inclusive were distinguished. Seventy chemical elements have been established to be species-defining, which are distributed by mineral systems as follows: 1 (29), 2 (62), 3 (68), 4 (61), 5 (61), 6 (55), 7 (49), 8 (38), 9 (28), and 10 (19). The number of mineral species in which certain chemical elements are species-defining has been specified. Oxygen (4041), hydrogen (2755), silicon (1448), calcium (1139), sulfur (1025), aluminum (960), iron (917), sodium (914), copper (616), phosphorous (580), arsenic (575), and magnesium (550) are the leading elements in minerals in the Earth’s crust. It has been found that the most species-defining elements are normally distributed by mineral systems. The distributions of mineral species in various systems from the Khibiny and Lovozero, Kola Peninsula, Russia; and Mont Saint-Hilaire, Quebec, Canada peralkaline plutons were compared and the characters of species-defining element distribution in these localities were compared. Si, Na, K, C, F, Ti, Ce, Zr, Nb, Sr, and Th are “excess” species-defining elements in minerals from the plutons compared to the total number of mineral species, whereas S, Cu, Pb, Cl, B, Te, Ag, Ni, and Be are “scarce” elements.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeology of Ore DepositsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207