MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391281253 · doi:10.1111/maps.14140

A sample preparation guide for clay‐rich carbonaceous chondrites

2024· article· en· W4391281253 on OpenAlexafffund
Bennett J. K. Wilson, V. E. Di Cecco, L. A. J. Garvie, K. T. Tait, M. G. Daly

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsChondriteGeologySample (material)GeochemistryAstrobiologyMineralogyChemistryMeteoriteChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The matrix of the C2‐ungrouped Tarda meteorite contains abundant smectite minerals that swell and crumble when exposed to polar liquids, causing the sample to rapidly slake. This phenomenon presents a serious challenge when polishing the meteorite, as common polishing liquids used on carbonaceous chondrites, such as water, ethanol, ethylene glycol, and isopropyl alcohol, are polar and will cause the sample to swell, making it unsuitable for some analyses. Hexane and mineral oil are nonpolar liquids that were found to not induce swelling on highly expansive montmorillonite‐clay analog material and were effectively integrated into a polishing procedure for Tarda. Here, we detail a procedure for mounting, cutting, and polishing the Tarda meteorite to prepare a surface that is suitable for a variety of sensitive techniques, such as electron microprobe analysis. This work offers a practical methodology for the preparation of other clay‐rich samples, which may include the recently returned Ryugu and Bennu materials.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.042

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207