MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221087131 · doi:10.3749/canmin.1800006

A proposed new mineralogical classification system for granitic pegmatites

2022· article· en· W4221087131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael A. Wise, Axel Müller, William B. Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPegmatiteAnatexisGeologyGeochemistryPlutonPartial meltingSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The current classification of granitic pegmatites, originally introduced by Černý (1991a), has been the accepted system for grouping pegmatites of diverse mineralogy and chemistry for nearly three decades. Despite its general acceptance, several issues have been highlighted (Müller et al. 2022) which have imposed some limitations on its use and therefore necessitated the need to reevaluate its methodology. A new classification for granitic pegmatites is proposed in an attempt to be more inclusive of pegmatite types omitted in previous classification schemes. The new approach utilizes a more comprehensive suite of accessory minerals and defines three pegmatite groups which are genetically related to granite plutons and the anatexis of metaigneous and metasedimentary protoliths. Pegmatites belonging to Groups 1 and 2 are generated from the residual melts of S-, A-, and I-type granite magmatism (RGM) as well as being direct products of anatexis (DPA), whereas Group 3 pegmatites are only derived by anatexis.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations110
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207