MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990009969 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53571-x

Challenging the thorium-immobility paradigm

2019· article· en· W2990009969 on OpenAlexaff
Haylea Nisbet, Artas Migdisov, Anthony E. Williams‐Jones, Hongwu Xu, Vincent van Hinsberg, Robert Roback

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryLaboratory Directed Research and DevelopmentGlenn T. Seaborg Institute
KeywordsThoriumHydrothermal circulationAqueous solutionExtrapolationActinideUraniumSolubilityChemistryGeologyMineralogyMaterials scienceNuclear chemistryMetallurgyPhysical chemistryMathematicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thorium is the most abundant actinide in the Earth’s crust and has universally been considered one of the most immobile elements in natural aqueous systems. This view, however, is based almost exclusively on solubility data obtained at low temperature and their theoretical extrapolation to elevated temperature. The occurrence of hydrothermal deposits with high concentrations of Th challenges the Th immobility paradigm and strongly suggests that Th may be mobilized by some aqueous fluids. Here, we demonstrate experimentally that Th, indeed, is highly mobile at temperatures between 175 and 250 °C in sulfate-bearing aqueous fluids due to the formation of the highly stable Th(SO 4 ) 2 aqueous complex. The results of this study indicate that current models grossly underestimate the mobility of Th in hydrothermal fluids, and thus the behavior of Th in ore-forming systems and the nuclear fuel cycle needs to be re-evaluated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207