MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011843662

Evolution of uranium and thorium minerals

2009· article· en· W3011843662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert M. Hazen, Rodney C. Ewing, Dimitri A. Sverjensky

Bibliographic record

VenueAGUFM · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUraniniteUraniumGeochemistryThoriumUranium oreGeologyUranylHydrothermal circulationMineralChemistryMineralogyRadiochemistryMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origins and near-surface distributions of the ~250 known uranium and/or thorium minerals elucidate principles of mineral evolution. This history can be divided into four phases. The first, from ~4.5 to 3.5 Ga, involved successive concentrations of uranium and thorium from their initial uniform trace distribution into magmatic-related fluids from which the first U4+ and Th4+ minerals, uraninite (ideally UO2), thorianite (ThO2), and coffinite (USiO4), precipitated in the crust. The second period, from ~3.5 to 2.2 Ga, saw the formation of large low-grade concentrations of detrital uraninite (containing several wt% Th) in the Witwatersrand-type quartz-pebble conglomerates deposited in a highly anoxic fluvial environment. Abiotic alteration of uraninite and coffinite, including radiolysis and auto-oxidation caused by radioactive decay and the formation of helium from alpha particles, may have resulted in the formation of a limited suite of uranyl oxide-hydroxides. Earth’s third phase of uranium mineral evolution, during which most known U minerals first precipitated from reactions of soluble uranyl (U6+O2)2+ complexes, followed the Great Oxidation Event (GOE) at ~2.2 Ga and thus was mediated indirectly by biologic activity. Most uraninite deposited during this phase was low in Th and precipitated from saline and oxidizing hydrothermal solutions (100 to 300 °C) transporting (UO2)2+-chloride complexes. Examples include the unconformity- and vein-type U deposits (Australia and Canada) and the unique Oklo natural nuclear reactors in Gabon. The onset of hydrothermal transport of (UO2)2+ complexes in the upper crust may reflect the availability of CaSO4- bearing evaporites after the GOE. During this phase, most uranyl minerals would have been able to form in the O2-bearing near-surface environment for the first time through weathering processes. The fourth phase of uranium mineralization began ~400 million years ago, as the rise of land plants led to non-marine organic-rich sediments that promoted new sandstone-type ore deposits. The modes of accumulation and even the compositions of uraninite, as well as the multiple oxidation states of U (4+, 5+, and 6+), are a sensitive indicator of global redox conditions. In contrast, the behavior of thorium, which has only a single oxidation state (4+) that has a very low solubility in the absence of aqueous F-complexes, cannot reflect changing redox conditions. Geochemical concentration of Th relative to U at high temperatures is therefore limited to special magmatic-related environments, where U4+ is preferentially removed by chloride or carbonate complexes, and at low temperatures by mineral surface reactions. The near-surface mineralogy of uranium and thorium provide a measure of a planet’s geotectonic and geobiological history. In the absence of extensive magmatic-related fluid reworking of the crust and upper mantle, uranium and thorium will not become sufficiently concentrated to form their own minerals or ore deposits. Furthermore, in the absence of surface oxidation, all but a handful of the known uranium minerals are unlikely to have formed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGUFMSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207