MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896352295 · doi:10.29173/ikc2567

Carbon Isotope Composition of Graphite in Mantle Eclogites

2019· article· en· W2896352295 on OpenAlexaff
Dj Schulze l, John W. Valley, Viljoen Andspicuzza ' l

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsAurora College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclogiteMantle (geology)GraphiteGeochemistryGeologyIsotopeCarbon fibersIsotopes of carbonEarth scienceMaterials scienceSubductionPaleontologyMetallurgyPhysicsNuclear physicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The carbon isotopic composition of diamond is reasonably well-known from measurements on hundreds of diamonds of known paragenesis. With very few exceptions, 5'^C values of peridotite-suite diamonds are in the restricted range -2 to -9%<?pdb, whereas 5*^C for eclogitic diamonds ranges from approximately +2 to -34%opdb (e.g., In contrast to this large data set, few isotopic data have been published for either eclogitic or peridotitic mantle-derived graphite. Values of 5^^C for primary graphites from peridotite xenoliths (-4.8 to -10.04%o; Existing carbon isotope data for graphite in mantle eclogites from Mir (Kropotova and Fedorenko, 1970), Roberts Victor (Deines et al., 1987), and Orapa (Deines et al., 1991) are, with one exception, in the "typical mantle range" (-3.98 to -8.7%opdb)-Graphite from a Schaffer, Wyoming kyanite eclogite (Schulze and Valley, in press) is unusually light, with 5*^C = -14.31%o. An additional anomalous graphite analysis (5^^C of -20.3%o) was reported by To enlarge the data base for mantle-derived graphites, we present carbon isotope data for graphites from 23 eclogite xenoliths, from the Bellsbank and Jagersfontein kimberlites in South Africa and the Orapa and Letlhakane kimberlites in Botswana.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
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

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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studiesFrench-language works237,207