MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099571011

Deposit, New Brunswick: Mineralogy, Geochemistry, Alteration, and Hydrothermal Regimes

2016· article· en· W7099571011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransectStibniteMetamorphic rockQuartzHydrothermal circulationVeinDevonianMetallogeny
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lake George antimony deposit consists of stibnite-bearing quartz veins which transect tightly folded Silurian graywacke, siltstone, and shale of the Fredericton trough. The veins are of two orientations: 0000/35 ø E (Lawrence vein) and 0900/33 ø N (Hibbard and Prout veins). To date, approximately 1 million short ons of ore grading 3.0 to 3.5 percent Sb have been mined from Hibbard, the dominant vein. Stibnite-bearing quartz veins transect he contact metamorphic aureole of a small grano-diorite porphyry stock which flanks the Devonian Pokiok batholith. The Hibbard vein refracts through folded country rocks, resulting in troughs and crests in the plane of the vein. Ap-proximately 80 percent of the ore mined from the Hibbard vein has come from one northeasterly trending ore shoot which formed at the intersection of the Hibbard vein with a synclinal axis in the country rocks. Three chemically distinct alteration zones have been recognized. The first is a domain of fracture-controlled argillic alteration rich in arsenopyrite, pyrite, and pyrrhotite which transects the preexisting contact metamorphic aureole. The second is a thin siliceous rind which transects

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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.006

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207