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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.036
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