MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024468837 · doi:10.1111/maps.13492

LA‐ICP‐MS Pb isotope test of meteorite provenance: A terrestrial origin for Lovina

2020· article· en· W3024468837 on OpenAlexaff
C. R. J. Charles, P. J. A. McCausland, Donald W. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroiliteMeteoriteProvenanceGeologyGeochemistryIron meteoriteAstrobiologyChondritePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lovina, classified as an ungrouped ataxite, is controversial and its identity as a meteorite has been questioned. In this work, we use Pb isotopes on targeted troilite nodules in Lovina as a test of its antiquity and provenance. Although precise ages cannot be obtained, LA‐ICP‐MS offers a rapid, straightforward procedure to establish the source of lead, whether ancient (meteoritic) or modern (terrestrial). For nine pristine, unweathered nodules in Lovina, we find a lead isotopic composition of: 206Pb/208Pb = 0.492 ± 0.003 (2σ, MSWD 0.79; 95%) and 207Pb/206Pb = 0.852 ± 0.003 (2σ, MSWD 1.09; 95%) with no detectable uranium. All lead compositions of the troilite fall in the range expected for modern environmental and mantle lead and are distinctly different from the primordial Canyon Diablo Troilite (CDT) composition of ancient meteoritic troilite. Although the origin of Lovina remains unknown, we conclude that lead in the Lovina troilite is unsupported by U decay and originated from a terrestrial source.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207