MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100178224

Oxygen and carbon isotopic composition of Grenville marble, and an appraisal of equilibrium in the distribution of isotopes between calcite and associated minerals

2015· article· en· W7100178224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalciteProterozoicMetamorphic rockIsotopes of oxygenMetasomatismδ18OCarbon fibersPrecambrianMineralStable isotope ratio
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marble occurs abundantly in a portion of the Grenville Province of the Canadian Shield extending from the Adirondack Mountains, through Ontario, and into the Laurentian Highlands of Quebec, a distance of 300 km. In the Otter Lake area of western Quebec, major marble units, which are obviously metamorphosed limestone, consist of combinations of calcite, dolomite, olivine, humite-group minerals, Ca pyroxene, Ca amphibole, biotite, graphite, and retrograde serpentine and brucite, whereas minor marble units, which are evidently metasomatic rocks, consist of combinations of (pink) calcite, Ca pyroxene, Ca amphibole, biotite, garnet, K-feldspar, scapolite, and titanite. The oxygen and carbon isotopic composition of calcite in the major marble units (18OVSMOW in the range 28 to 17‰; 13CPDB–1 in the range +6 to –2‰) is the same as in the Adirondacks and in unmetamorphosed Proterozoic limestone; only slight shifts (~1‰) can be attributed directly to metamorphic reactions. In bodies of minor marble, mean concentrations of 18O and 13C are slightly lower (+14.5 and +0.23‰, respectively). Mean fractionation-factors (), expressed

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 score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207