MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3164213117 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2020680118

Tungsten-182 evidence for an ancient kimberlite source

2021· article· en· W3164213117 on OpenAlexaff
Nao Nakanishi, Andrea Giuliani, Richard W. Carlson, M. F. Horan, Jon Woodhead, D. Graham Pearson, R. J. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCenter for Hierarchical Manufacturing, National Science Foundation
KeywordsKimberliteMantle (geology)GeologyGeochemistryIgneous rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Kimberlites are igneous rocks derived from deep mantle sources. Recent studies have suggested that certain kimberlites originated from a mantle source with relatively primitive chemical composition that was created by early Earth processes. We present W isotope data for a global suite of kimberlites with variable formation ages and find their mantle source(s) to be characterized by 182 W/ 184 W averaging ∼6 ppm lower than the upper mantle ratio. This result is consistent with derivation of some kimberlites from one or more early formed mantle reservoirs. The low 182 W/ 184 W of these kimberlites is indicative of an ancient mantle source modified by some form of core–mantle interaction, an early silicate fractionation event, an overabundance of late-accreted materials, or a combination of these.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→