MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096810064

Rare Earth Elements in the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive' Comparison with Layered Gabbros and Implications

2016· article· en· W7096810064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRare-earth elementRare earthFractional crystallization (geology)NoriteFractionationMagmaNickelNeutron activation analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rare earth element content of rocks from the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive has been determined by neutron activation analysis. The Irruptive rocks are characterized by high absolute rare earth element contents and chondrite-normalized rare earth element fractionation patterns which show strong enrichment of light, relative to heavy rare earth elements. Correlative rock units from the north and south ranges have very similar chondrite-normalized rare earth element fractionation patterns. Micropegmatites and norites are characterized by negative and positive Eu anomalies, respectively, whereas border norites and oxide-rich gabbros lack prominent Eu anomalies. The Irruptive border norites are considered to have crystallized as a relatively closed system and their rare earth element fractionation patterns are regarded as representative of the parental Irruptive magma. The mirror-image Eu anomaly characteristics of the micropegmatite and norite and the likelihood that they arise from a nonanomalous parental magma indicate that these rocks are comagmatic and that they are related by gravitational fractional crystallization processes. The norites represent cumulates and the

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisFrench-language works237,207