MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100806775

Detecting Mineralization Using Partial Element Extractions: A Case Study Abstract

2008· article· en· W7100806775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineralization (soil science)Glacial periodMatrix (chemical analysis)Signature (topology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting deep mineralization from partial element concentrations in surface and near-surface samples requires detecting the signature of one geochemical process against a background that arises from many other geochemical processes. Since the last glaciation of the Canadian Shield, it is believed that only H + can have diffused through substantial overburden, and hence that the only available signatures for underlying mineralization must be based, directly or indirectly, on pH. We show that direct observation of pH may not be a reliable signature for underlying mineralization, but that signatures based on the indirect effects of a pH low are readily visible using matrix decompositions. 1

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.141 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207