A comparison of two Paleoproterozoic pegmatite districts and nearby granite bodies in Florence County, Wisconsin and Marquette County, Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| September 30, 2019 A comparison of two Paleoproterozoic pegmatite districts and nearby granite bodies in Florence County, Wisconsin and Marquette County, Michigan Thomas W. Buchholz; Thomas W. Buchholz § 1140 12th Street North, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, 54494 USA § Corresponding author e-mail address: buchholz@wctc.net Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Alexander U. Falster; Alexander U. Falster MP 2Research Group, Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, Bethel, Maine 04217, USA Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar William. B. Simmons; William. B. Simmons MP 2Research Group, Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, Bethel, Maine 04217, USA Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Karen L. Webber; Karen L. Webber MP 2Research Group, Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, Bethel, Maine 04217, USA Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Christopher M. van Daalen Christopher M. van Daalen 330 N Carrollton Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70119, USA Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Thomas W. Buchholz § 1140 12th Street North, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, 54494 USA Alexander U. Falster MP 2Research Group, Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, Bethel, Maine 04217, USA William. B. Simmons MP 2Research Group, Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, Bethel, Maine 04217, USA Karen L. Webber MP 2Research Group, Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, Bethel, Maine 04217, USA Christopher M. van Daalen 330 N Carrollton Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70119, USA § Corresponding author e-mail address: buchholz@wctc.net Publisher: Mineralogical Association of Canada First Online: 07 Oct 2019 Online Issn: 1499-1276 Print Issn: 0008-4476 © 2019 Mineralogical Association of Canada The Canadian Mineralogist (2019) 57 (5): 719–721. https://doi.org/10.3749/canmin.AB00003 Article history First Online: 07 Oct 2019 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Thomas W. Buchholz, Alexander U. Falster, William. B. Simmons, Karen L. Webber, Christopher M. van Daalen; A comparison of two Paleoproterozoic pegmatite districts and nearby granite bodies in Florence County, Wisconsin and Marquette County, Michigan. The Canadian Mineralogist 2019;; 57 (5): 719–721. doi: https://doi.org/10.3749/canmin.AB00003 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyThe Canadian Mineralogist Search Advanced Search Paleoproterozoic pegmatites and granites occur in Florence County, Wisconsin and Marquette and Dickinson Counties, Michigan. In Florence County, granite bodies occur in the proximity of the Penokean Pine and Popple River pegmatite and the Price and Patton Lake pegmatite fields (PPR-PPL). In Marquette County (MC), several pegmatites are spatially associated with the late Penokean Humboldt granite (HG), and in Dickinson County (DC) pegmatite relations with granites are obscure (Buchholz et al. 2014a, 2014b, Van Daalen 2015). The PPR-PPL field has been documented as anatectic in origin (Falster et al. 2018). The pegmatites... You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".