MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322774671 · doi:10.1144/geochem2022-054

Comparison of lithium borate fusion and four-acid digestions for the determination of whole-rock chemistry – implications for lithogeochemistry and mineral exploration

2023· article· en· W4322774671 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Alkali metalDecompositionPlagioclaseMineralogyPotassiumGeologyMass spectrometryEnvironmental chemistryMetallurgyMaterials scienceQuartzChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining and exploration companies routinely use four-acid digestion (4AD), inductively coupled plasma, atomic emission spectra/mass spectrometry methods from commercial assay laboratories for analysing drill and rock samples for lithogeochemical assessment and resource reporting. This method is also known to exhibit lower recovery of elements hosted by resistate minerals. To assess the impact of lower recoveries on lithogeochemical interpretation, a suite of commonly used elements for lithogeochemical analysis (high-field-strength elements Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Ti and Eu and transition elements V and Sc) was analysed by 4AD and alkali fusion/acid digestion (AFAD). Lower recoveries in the 4AD relative to the AFAD were recorded for Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Ti and Eu; Sc and V reported similar concentrations for both decomposition methods. Despite the lower recoveries for Nb, Ta and Ti, element ratios were largely preserved with the 4AD method due to the recoveries covarying at a 1:1 ratio. A plot of Ti/Nb against V/Sc was found to be largely unaffected by decomposition method, producing similar compositional classifications between the two digestion methods. Use of the Eu anomaly (Eu/Eu*) to determine plagioclase fractionation was also found to be unaffected by decomposition method. In contrast, a standard Zr/Ti v. Nb/Y discrimination plot produced incorrect classifications with 4AD producing more mafic and alkaline classifications relative to the AFAD method. Magmatic fertility interpretations utilizing Zr/Hf were also found to be affected in the 4AD results due to the lower recovery of Zr relative to Hf. This resulted in a bias in the 4AD results and produced false-positive anomalism in fertility assessments. Multiple decomposition methods including combinations of acid and fusion methods are recommended for lithogeochemical analysis utilizing large regions of the periodic table. However, if only 4AD data are available, plots such as Ti/Nb v. V/Sc and Nb/Ta, which preserve their ratios, can be used for lithogeochemical classification. Supplementary material: Wholerock geochemical data and detailed methods are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6444444

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.230 · 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