Exploring the relationships between Electron Spin Resonance (ESR)/Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) properties and trace element composition in various quartz-bearing bedrocks (Strengbach catchment, Vosges)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Quartz Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) and Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) offer valuable quantitative tools both for Quaternary sediment dating but also for understanding sediment provenance and dynamics. However, the variability of quartz sensitivity remains an issue, attributed either to the intrinsic properties of source bedrock, to processes during sediment transport and deposition, or to both. This study addresses these questions by investigating quartz from magmatic, metamorphic, and sedimentary formations in the Strengbach catchment (Vosges Massif, France). Using a combination of ESR, OSL, and LA-ICPMS trace element analyses, our study reveals significant relationships between quartz OSL/ESR sensitivities and source bedrock characteristics, such as lithology, crystallization conditions, and deformation histories. ESR Ti-centre and OSL signals are notably influenced by trace elements like Al, Li, and Ti. Samples that underwent high pressure during metamorphism along with those located in the tectonic shear zone show both lowest OSL and ESR intensities, while higher sensitivities are observed in plutonic rocks and sandstones. This suggests that (i) pressure can be one of the prevailing factors driving changes in OSL/ESR sensitivities (ii) enhanced OSL sensitivity in mature and recycled sediments underscores the impact of sedimentary transport and reworking. Our results highlight the need for careful interpretation of ESR and OSL signals, both for dating or sourcing, particularly in sediments derived from metamorphic terrains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".