MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588200775 · doi:10.2113/gselements.13.2.89

Magmatic Sulfide Ore Deposits

2017· article· en· W2588200775 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueElements · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBayer CanadaAustralian SynchrotronCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsCitationVolcanogenic massive sulfide ore depositSulfideGeochemistryHistoryGeologyArchaeologyLibrary scienceComputer scienceChemistryPyriteSphalerite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magmatic sulfide ore deposits are products of natural smelting: concentration of elements from silicate magmas (slags) by immiscible sulfide liquid (matte). Deposits occupy a spectrum from accumulated pools of matte within small igneous intrusions or lava flows, forming orebodies mined primarily for Ni and Cu, to stratiform layers of weakly disseminated sulfides, mined for platinum group elements, within large mafic-ultramafic intrusions. One of the world’s most valuable deposits, the Platreef in the Bushveld Complex in South Africa, has aspects of both of these end members. Natural matte compositions vary widely between and within deposits, controlled largely by the relative volumes of matte and slag that interact with one another.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0160.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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