MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411749483 · doi:10.1111/ggr.70005

The Effect of Crystal Orientation on <i>In Situ</i> Rb‐Sr Mica Geochronology

2025· article· en· W4411749483 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyle P. Larson, Sudip Shrestha, Mark Button, John M. Cottle, Christopher J. Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueGeostandards and Geoanalytical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeochronologyMicaIn situGeologyOrientation (vector space)MineralogyCrystal (programming language)CrystallographyGeochemistryMaterials scienceChemistryPaleontologyGeometryMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mica crystals have a highly asymmetric structure, arranged in sheets of two tetrahedral layers bonded to a single octahedral layer. The individual sheets are only weakly bonded, leading to perfect basal cleavage. The recent proliferation of in situ laser ablation‐based Rb‐Sr geochronology of mica makes it critical to understand if orientation of the crystal lattice relative to the laser beam may impart a differential ‘matrix’ effect on Rb‐Sr ratios during ablation. Analyses of mica crystals from eight different samples, including biotite, muscovite and phlogopite, mounted with their c ‐axes approximately parallel (flat‐mounted) and perpendicular (vertically mounted) to the incident laser beam, result in dates that are statistically indistinguishable. Moreover, and consistent with previous work, analysis of vertically mounted crystals generally resulted in less within‐spot variation in 87 Rb/ 86 Sr, and is, therefore, the recommended orientation for Rb‐Sr geochronology measurements, where practical.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.314
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeostandards and Geoanalytical ResearchSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207