MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613814456 · doi:10.1190/geo2017-0153.1

The impact of magnetic viscosity on time-domain electromagnetic data from iron oxide minerals embedded in rocks at Opemiska, Québec, Canada

2017· article· en· W2613814456 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Frederic Gaucher, Richard S. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaghemiteMagnetiteMagnetic mineralogyGeologyMineralogyOverburdenIronstoneIron oxideRegolithRock magnetismMagnetic susceptibilityAnalytical Chemistry (journal)RemanenceMaterials scienceChemistryGeochemistryPhysicsCondensed matter physicsMagnetizationMagnetic fieldMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The magnetic viscosity (MV) effects observed at time scales between 0.01 and 10 ms at Opemiska are associated with magnetic grains of variable size in rocks. Recent observations made during a ground time-domain electromagnetic (TDEM) survey at Opemiska are consistent with four aspects of the spatial and amplitude characteristics of a MV response: (1) the [Formula: see text] decay rate is roughly proportional to [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text], (2) the anomalies are mainly visible on the [Formula: see text]-component, when the EM receiver sensor is located inside or just outside the transmitter loop, (3) there is no obvious [Formula: see text]- or [Formula: see text]-component response, and (4) the sites where MV effects are seen in the TDEM data are coincident with an airborne magnetic anomaly. Previous studies have demonstrated that MV could be caused by (1) fine-grained particles of maghemite or magnetite in the overburden, regolith, or soil that were formed through lateritic weathering processes, (2) volcanic glass shards from tuff containing approximately 1% by weight magnetite, which occur as grains approximately [Formula: see text] in size precipitated in a spatially uniform way, or (3) from the Gallionella bacterium that precipitates ferrihydrite that oxidizes to nanocrystalline maghemite aggregates. The sites investigated at Opemiska are outcropping and well-exposed with relatively little or no overburden, and they are unfavorable for the formation of maghemite; hence, it is assumed that the source of MV seen at Opemiska cannot be the maghemite, or the other aforementioned causes. Hand samples were collected from Opemiska to identify the minerals present. Polished thin sections observed under an optical reflecting microscope identified the accessory minerals magnetite, ilmenite, and pyrrhotite, all known for their relatively high magnetic susceptibility. The use of the scanning electron microscope confirmed fine-grained magnetite grains as small as [Formula: see text]. An electromagnetic induction spectrometer confirmed the viscous nature of the susceptibility of the Opemiska samples. This suggests that MV could originate not only from fine-grained magnetite and maghemite particles located in the weathered regolith but also from other iron oxides and magnetic minerals embedded in the rock itself.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207