MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389754163 · doi:10.2138/gselements.19.1.15

How to Make an Alkaline Lake: Fifty Years of Chemical Divides

2023· article· en· W4389754163 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

VenueElements · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentologyEvaporitePaleoclimatologyBiogeochemistryEarth scienceGeologyMineralPrecipitationWeatheringAstrobiologyOceanographyGeochemistryClimate changeEcologyMeteorologyGeographySedimentary rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of all the surface environments on our planet, alkaline lakes are among the most distinctive and significant in terms of their biogeochemistry, climatic sensitivity, and associated mineral deposits. But how does the Earth produce alkaline lakes? Fifty years ago, Lawrence Hardie and Hans Eugster hypothesised that the bewildering complexity of non-marine evaporites could be explained by common successions of mineral precipitation events, or chemical divides. Since that time, the chemical divide concept has provided Earth scientists with an enduring framework within which to integrate new advances in mineral–water equilibria and kinetics, sedimentology, and paleoclimatology. These developments are painting an increasingly detailed picture of how alkaline waters form and interact with magmatic and atmospheric CO2, now and in the distant 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.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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