A revised alpha-ejection correction calculation for (U-Th)/He thermochronology dates of broken apatite crystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Accurate corrections for the effects of alpha ejection (the loss of daughter He near grain or crystal surfaces due to long alpha-stopping distances) is central to (U-Th)/He thermochronometry. In the case of apatite (U-Th)/He dating, alpha-ejection correction is complicated by the fact that crystals are often broken perpendicular to the c-axis. In such cases the correction should account for the fact that only some parts of the crystal are affected by alpha-ejection. A common current practice to account for such broken crystals is to modify measured lengths of broken crystals missing one termination by a factor of 1.5, and those missing both terminations by a factor of 2. This alpha-ejection “correction correction” systematically overestimates the actual fraction of helium lost to alpha ejection, and thus overcorrects the measured date relative to that determined for an otherwise equivalent unbroken crystal. The alpha-ejection-affected surface-area-to-volume ratio of a fragmented crystal is equivalent to the surface-area-to-volume ratio of an unbroken crystal twice as long (for fragments with one termination), and equivalent to that of an unbroken crystal infinitely long (for fragments with no termination). We suggest it is appropriate to revise the fragmentation correction to multiply the length of crystals missing one c-axis termination by 2, and those missing both c-axis termination by some large number >~20, respectively. We examine the effect of this revised correction and demonstrate the accuracy of the new method using synthetic datasets. Taking into account alpha-ejection, rounding of the He concentration profile due to diffusive loss, and accumulation of radiation damage over a range of thermal histories, we show that the revised fragmentation alpha-ejection correction proposed here accurately approximates the corrected date of an unbroken crystal (“true” date) to within < 0.7 % on average (±4.2 %, 1σ), whereas the former method overcorrects dates to be ~3 % older than the “true” date, on average. For individual grains, the former method can result in older dates by a few percent in most cases, and by as much as 12 % for grains with aspect ratio of up to 1 : 1. The revised alpha-ejection correction proposed here is both more accurate and more precise than the previous correction, and does not introduce any significant systematic bias to the apparent dates from a sample.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".