MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810986719 · doi:10.2138/am-2018-6404

Effect of alkalinity on sulfur concentration at sulfide saturation in hydrous basaltic andesite to shoshonite melts at 1270 °C and 1 GPa

2018· article· en· W2810986719 on OpenAlexaff
Rameses J. D’Souza, Dante Canil

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Sussex
KeywordsAlkalinityAndesiteMineral redox bufferSulfideSaturation (graph theory)BasaltAlkali metalMineralogyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)QuartzSulfurFugacityMagnetiteChemistryGeologyInorganic chemistryMantle (geology)GeochemistryVolcanic rockPhysical chemistryVolcanoEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have measured the effect of alkalis on S concentration at sulfide saturation (SCSS) in an underexplored compositional space of natural hydrous arc melts (basaltic andesite to shoshonite) at 1270 °C and 1 GPa. At an oxygen fugacity approximately 2.5 log units below the fayalite-magnetite-quartz (FMQ) buffer, SCSS increases with Na2O (562 ppm S/wt% Na2O), K2O (98 ppm S/wt% K2O), and total alkalis (88 ppm S/wt% Na2O+K2O) over the compositional range we have studied (1.6–3.1 wt% Na2O; 0–6.5 wt% K2O; 1.9–6.3 wt% FeOtot). Experiments with ~1.3 wt% H2O show approximately half the increase in SCSS with alkalinity compared to those with ~3.0 wt% H2O. Our results show a possible limit to the increase in SCSS solely by increasing alkali concentration at ~7.5 wt% total alkali concentration. Using our results and published data, we retrained earlier SCSS models to provide a better fit to test data. We also developed a new empirical model using theoretical optical basicity as a compositional parameter that predicts SCSS in the overall data set with slightly better accuracy compared to previous models:

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207