MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392364199 · doi:10.1130/g51887.1

Magnetite-apatite ores record widespread involvement of molten salts

2024· article· en· W4392364199 on OpenAlexafffund
Xinyue Xu, Wyatt M. Bain, Fernando Tornos, John M. Hanchar, Hector Lamadrid, Bernd Lehmann, Xiaochun Xu, Jeffrey A. Steadman, R. S. Bottrill, Majid Soleymani, Abdorrahman Rajabi, Peng Li, Xuehai Tan, Shihong Xu, Andrew J. Locock, Matthew Steele‐MacInnis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandGeological Survey of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMagnetiteGeologyApatiteGeochemistryMining engineeringMineralogyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The origins of magnetite-apatite deposits are controversial, and the crux of the debate is what types of fluids form these rocks. We present evidence from 20 magnetite-apatite deposits worldwide showing ubiquitous involvement of molten salts. The studied deposits are distributed globally, from various tectonic settings, and from Precambrian to Quaternary in age. In every case, water-poor polycrystalline melt inclusions in ore-stage minerals are dominated by sulfate, chloride, and carbonate components plus variable proportions of calc-silicates, phosphates, and iron ± titanium oxides that re-melt between 285 °C and 1100 °C. These fluids are very different from what is generally expected in most geologic settings, but their ubiquitous presence in magnetite-apatite rocks indicates that molten salts are widespread and essential to the formation of these deposits.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207