MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926479942 · doi:10.1111/ggr.12264

Natural Titanite Reference Materials for<i>In Situ</i>U‐Pb and Sm‐Nd Isotopic Measurements by<scp>LA</scp>‐(<scp>MC</scp>)‐<scp>ICP</scp>‐<scp>MS</scp>

2019· article· en· W2926479942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qian Ma, Noreen J. Evans, Xiao‐Xiao Ling, Jin‐Hui Yang, Fu‐Yuan Wu, Zhidan Zhao, Yue‐Heng Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeostandards and Geoanalytical Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTitaniteMineralMineralogyGeologyHomogeneousIsotopeIn situGeochemistryGeochronologyRadiochemistryChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ZirconEnvironmental chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Titanite is a common accessory mineral that preferentially incorporates considerable amounts of U and light rare earth elements in its structure, making it a versatile mineral for in situ U‐Pb dating and Sm‐Nd isotopic measurement. Here, we present in situ U‐Pb ages and Sm‐Nd isotope measurement results for four well‐known titanite reference materials (Khan, BLR ‐1, OLT 1 and MKED 1) and eight titanite crystals that could be considered potential reference material candidates (Ontario, YQ ‐82, T3, T4, TLS ‐36, NW ‐ IOA , Pakistan and C253), with ages ranging from ~ 20 Ma to ~ 1840 Ma. Results indicate that BLR ‐1, OLT 1, Ontario, MKED 1 and T3 titanite have relatively homogeneous Sm‐Nd isotopes and low common Pb and thus can serve as primary reference materials for U‐Pb and Sm‐Nd microanalysis. YQ ‐82 and T4 titanite can be used as secondary reference materials for in situ U‐Pb analysis because of their low common Pb. However, internal structures and mineral inclusions in YQ ‐82 will require careful selection of suitable target domains. Pakistan titanite is almost concordant with an age of 21 Ma and can be used as a reference material when dating Cenozoic titanite samples.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeostandards and Geoanalytical ResearchSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207