MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323539234 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2023-0009

U–Pb geochronology: its development and importance in Canada

2023· article· en· W4323539234 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Donald W. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeochronologyZirconGeologyThermal ionization mass spectrometryIsotope dilutionEarth scienceEarth historyGeochemistryMass spectrometryPaleontologyIonizationIonChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a history of the development of U–Pb geochronology with emphasis on the role of Canadian researchers and some of its applications to Canadian geology. Modern U–Pb dating is the result of work by many individuals over the past 60 years, but the most important was Tom Krogh, who established methods that allowed determination of precise ages (<0.1% errors) on zircon using isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry. This was followed by the introduction of new analytical approaches by others, notably secondary ion mass spectrometry and laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry that allow intracrystal domains to be dated. U–Pb geochronology is now an indispensable tool for understanding the Earth. In collaboration with field mapping, it has vastly improved our understanding of the geological history of Canada as well as important geological events such as mass extinctions, secular changes in geological processes, and the birth of the solar system.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→