MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322761980 · doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2023.121409

Source versus weathering processes as controls on the Mackenzie river uranium isotope signature

2023· article· en· W4322761980 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Quentin Charbonnier, Robert Hilton, Derek Vance

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Geology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWeatheringGeologySedimentary rockSilicateGeochemistryUraniumIsotopic signatureFractionationIsotopes of uraniumDrainage basinMineralogyStable isotope ratioChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uranium (U) isotope signatures (δ238U) recorded in sedimentary archives provide insight into the paleo redox state of the ocean. But the robust interpretation of these sedimentary U isotope records requires characterisation of the U isotope signature of rivers, the main source of U to the ocean. The main controlling factors on riverine δ238U remain poorly constrained. Here, we investigate the elemental and isotope signatures of uranium in the dissolved and solid loads of a well-characterised river, the Mackenzie Basin (Canada). In the Mackenzie Basin, the solid load δ238U shows a positive relationship with U and vanadium (V) contents, consistent with the suggestion that particulate δ238U are explained by variable contributions via erosion of silicate and black shale. The δ238U of the dissolved and solid loads are correlated which, at first sight, suggests no U isotope fractionation during chemical weathering, and a purely lithological control on both the river dissolved and solid δ238U. Moreover, relationships between dissolved U and δ238U and major elements such as calcium and sulfate, also support the idea of a lithological control. However, the δ238U of end members inferred from mixing relationships are not consistent with binary mixing of two sources, suggesting some potential U isotope fractionation during weathering. In fact, the abundance of U in the river dissolved load is always lower than that predicted by silicate rock weathering. This suggests that 1) the weathering of silicate only can explain the abundance of U in the river dissolved load and 2) secondary weathering processes scavenge a proportion of the U released by primary mineral breakdown. The broad negative relationship between δ238U and the depletion of dissolved U is also consistent with the control of dissolved δ238U by secondary weathering processes following silicate mineral breakdown. The relationships observed between dissolved U, δ238U and the large-scale environmental controls on weathering processes (such as weathering intensity or runoff) support this hypothesis. Overall, our interpretations of the variation in the river dissolved δ238U challenge the common assumption of the control of dissolved U by black shale and carbonate weathering. In addition, we suggest that the extent of secondary weathering processes can imprint on the U isotope signature of rivers, now and in the past.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0060.002

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical GeologySame topicGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisFrench-language works237,207