MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923907630 · doi:10.1144/geochem2018-044

Comparison of methods for the geochemical determination of rare earth elements: Rock Canyon Creek REE–F–Ba deposit case study, SE British Columbia, Canada

2019· article· en· W2923907630 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carlee Akam, George J. Simandl, Ray Lett, S J Paradis, M. Hoshino, Yoshiaki Kon, Daisuke Araoka, Craig Green, Shinsuke Kodama, Tetsuichi Takagi, M. Iqbal Chaudhry

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of VictoriaGovernment of British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNational Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
KeywordsCanyonGeologyRare earthGeochemistryArchaeologyGeomorphologyMineralogyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the Rock Canyon Creek carbonate-hosted rare earth element (REE)–F–Ba deposit as an example, we demonstrate the need for verifying inherited geochemical data prior to reinterpretation. Inherited La, Ce, Nd and Sm data obtained by pressed pellet X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and La and Y data obtained by aqua regia digestion inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) for more than 300 drill-core samples were analysed in 2009 and were subsequently compared to sample subsets re-analysed using lithium metaborate-tetraborate (LMB) fusion ICP mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS), Na 2 O 2 fusion ICP-MS, and LMB fusion-XRF. We determine that LMB ICP-MS and Na 2 O 2 ICP-MS accurately determined REE concentrations in control reference materials (CRM) SY-2 and SY-4, and provided precision of about 10%. Fusion-XRF was precise for La, Ce and Nd at concentrations greater than ten times the lower detection limit; however, accuracy of this method was not established because REE concentrations in SY-4 were below the lower detection limit. Analysis of the sample subset revealed substantial discrepancies for Ce concentrations determined by pressed pellet XRF in comparison to those determined by other methods due to Ba spectral interference. Samarium, present in lower concentrations than other REE that were determined, was consistently underestimated by XRF methods relative to ICP-MS methods. This may be the result of Sm concentrations approaching the lower detection limits of XRF methods, elemental interference or inadequate background corrections. Aqua regia dissolution results, reporting only for La and Y, are underestimated relative to the other methods. We highlight the importance of selecting the most appropriate analytical method and reference materials for determining the REE content of mineralized rock which may be several orders of magnitude higher than that of typical host rock.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Exploration Environment AnalysisSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207