MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245542141 · doi:10.1093/petrology/egi041

Petrogenesis of Proterozoic Lamproites and Kimberlites from the Cuddapah Basin and Dharwar Craton, Southern India: a Reply

2005· article· en· W4245542141 on OpenAlexaff
N. V. Chalapathi Rao, Sally Gibson, David M. Pyle, Alan P. Dickin, Jason Day

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petrology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberlitePetrogenesisDharwar CratonGeologyProterozoicGeochemistryCratonPetrologyPaleontologyMantle (geology)Tectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mid-Proterozoic kimberlites and lamproites from southern India are some of the world's oldest known, small-fraction, volatile-rich, silicate melts that, until recently, have remained poorly documented in the international literature. The main aim of the work by Chalapathi Rao et al. (2004) was to understand the tectono-magmatic processes operating beneath the Dharwar Craton and Cuddapah Basin during the Mid-Proterozoic. To constrain (1) the melt generation processes and (2) the nature of the source regions involved in the genesis of the small-fraction mantle melts it was necessary for us to undertake detailed petrographic descriptions and high-precision analyses of the mineral and bulk-rock chemistry of Dharwar craton kimberlites and Cuddapah Basin lamproites. The main emphasis of the paper by Chalapathi Rao et al. (2004) was not to classify rocks as kimberlites or lamproites, as Anil Kumar & Gopalan (2005) suggest, although this was made possible by results from our detailed mineralogical and geochemical studies.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PetrologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207