GeoCoDA: Recognizing and validating structural processes in geochemical data. A workflow on compositional data analysis in lithogeochemistry
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
Geochemical data are compositional in nature and are subject to the problems typically associated with data that are restricted to the real non-negative number space with constant-sum constraint, that is, the simplex. Geochemistry can be considered a proxy for mineralogy, comprised of atomically ordered structures that define the placement and abundance of elements in the mineral lattice structure. Based on the innovative contributions of John Aitchison, who introduced the logratio transformation into compositional data analysis, this contribution provides a systematic workflow for assessing geochemical data in a simple and efficient way, such that significant geochemical (mineralogical) processes can be recognized and validated. This workflow, called GeoCoDA and presented here in the form of a tutorial, enables the recognition of processes from which models can be constructed based on the associations of elements that reflect mineralogy. Both the original compositional values and their transformation to logratios are considered. These models can reflect rock-forming processes, metamorphism, alteration and ore mineralization. Moreover, machine learning methods, both unsupervised and supervised, applied to an optimized set of subcompositions of the data, provide a systematic, accurate, efficient and defensible approach to geochemical data analysis. The workflow is illustrated on lithogeochemical data from exploration of the Star kimberlite, consisting of a series of eruptions with five recognized phases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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