MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415209819 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-4370

Muon paleotopometry

2025· preprint· en· W4415209819 on OpenAlexafffund
John Gosse, Alan J. Hidy, Lauren MacLellan, Joel L. Pederson, Gerald Raab, Matthew Drew, Sophie L. Norris, M.-C. Piro, William Woodley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaMemorial University of NewfoundlandDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryCanada Foundation for InnovationDalhousie UniversityNuclear Waste Management Organization
KeywordsCosmogenic nuclideNuclideMuonErosionFlux (metallurgy)NeutrinoGlacier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Recent advances in measuring muon fluxes at great depths for neutrino experiments, along with improvements in in-situ terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide (TCN) measurements, have enhanced our understanding of muogenic nuclide production rates at decametre and hectometre depths. These developments allow us to explore muogenic TCN as a tool for estimating long-term (>10⁵ years) erosion rates. There are theoretical advantages of utilizing muogenic TCN for long-term landscape evolution analysis (µ-paleotopometry). We summarize recent advances in knowledge of deep muon flux used in the interpretation of neutrino interactions at kilometre depths. We discuss strategies being considered for the µ-paleotopometry method to address otherwise intractable landscape evolution questions. We demonstrate an achievable resolution of calculated erosion rates with TCN measurements in quartz at rock depths of 37.8 x 103 to 67.5 x 103 g cm-2 (~ 140 and 250 m). In settings where assumptions of constant erosion rate are suitable, the uncertainty is controlled by nuclide concentration measurement error and the effective time (duration over which the isotope concentration reflects the erosion history) is limited by radio-decay. Other environmental complexities, such as variable glacier cover, unknown complexity in initial topography, or mineral composition of rock may restrict the addressable questions and limit precision. Where a time-varying erosion rate is sought, deeper-time variances have inferior representation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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)0.0060.001

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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies→French-language works237,207→