MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2813134485 · doi:10.1071/sr18062

Iron oxides in fractured quartz – development and evolution of iron sandstone layers in the Kinshasa area, DR Congo

2018· article· en· W2813134485 on OpenAlexaff
Florias Mees, G. Phemba, P. Lahogue, E. De Grave, Éric Van Ranst, C. Mpiana

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsTheMuseum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuartzGeologyIron oxideThin sectionGeochemistryMineralogyPyriteErosionMetallurgyMaterials scienceGeomorphologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quartz grains in an iron sandstone layer in near-surface sandy deposits at Kasangulu, south of Kinshasa, DR Congo, are marked by the presence of iron oxides in subparallel horizontal cracks within the sand grains. This exceptional feature was investigated to understand its origin and paleoenvironmental significance. Based on thin section observations, supplemented by Mössbauer spectroscopy results and other data, the occurrence of filled subparallel cracks is attributed to iron oxide remobilisation following crack opening within an iron-oxide-cemented sand intercalation that became exposed through erosion, whereby crack opening is related to surface temperature fluctuations. The development of filled crack occurrences of this type requires a period of surface exposure, implying that their presence is indicative of the position of former surface levels. A macroscopically similar iron sandstone layer at another locality in the Kinshasa area, lacking filled cracks, provides indications for both surface exposure and cement type as factors in their development.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil ResearchSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207