A data screening approach to confirming a target mineral is chlorite using <scp>EPMA</scp> and <scp>LA‐ICPMS</scp> data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Applying machine learning techniques to large datasets of in situ analyses has been proven to be a powerful tool in Earth Sciences. However, problems may arise when dealing with minerals such as chlorite, that exist as a solid solution rather than a single, stoichiometric ideal. It can be difficult to determine whether the variations in major element concentrations are due to compositional difference in the mineral of interest or due to sampling of the surrounding mineral phases in addition to the mineral of interest during the analyses. If the latter, interpretations of the results would be complicated, misled or even spurious. Here we present a method to identify chlorite based on the major and minor element content, from both LA‐ICPMS and EPMA data. Further we present a dataset of 3,317 analyses of chlorite and have shown that 7.4% of these analyses include significant quantities of non‐chlorite material.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it