MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236603165 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781773.018

Physical properties

2010· other· en· W4236603165 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Jaupart, Jean‐Claude Mareschal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGeothermal Energy Systems and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal conductivityPlagioclaseMineralogySilicateMineralQuartzBoreholeAnisotropyGeologySilicate mineralsThermalHeat fluxThermodynamicsThin sectionFlux (metallurgy)Materials scienceHeat transferChemistryGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsMetallurgyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thermal conductivities of the main silicate minerals are well known and vary within a rather large range of about 1.6–7.7 W m-1 K-1 (Horai and Simmons, 1969; Diment and Pratt, 1988). The lowest and largest conductivity values are those of plagioclase and quartz, respectively. In principle, it is possible to calculate the thermal conductivity of a rock from knowledge of its mineral phases and their proportions. The procedure is discussed in a separate section below but is rarely implemented. Silicate minerals are anisotropic and belong to solid solutions with end-members that may have very different conductivities. An accurate prediction would thus require determination of the composition and orientation of each mineral phase. For heat flux measurements, furthermore, such determinations would need to be done over a representative rock volume and not at the scale of a petrological thin section. For this reason, thermal conductivity must be measured on each and every rock type encountered in a borehole. For regional thermal models, one may choose representative values for the dominant rock types, but one must pay attention to the level of approximation that is entailed.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeothermal Energy Systems and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207