MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W8452874 · doi:10.3133/sir20075289g

Surface-water, ground-water, and sediment geochemistry of epizonal and shear-hosted mineral deposits in the Tintina Gold Province--arsenic and antimony distribution and mobility: Chapter G in <i>Recent U.S. Geological Survey studies in the Tintina Gold Province, Alaska, United States, and Yukon, Canada--results of a 5-year project</i>

2007· article· en· W8452874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seth Mueller, Richard J. Goldfarb, Philip L. Verplanck, Thomas P. Trainor, R.F. Sanzolone, Monique Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific investigations report · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Park ServiceNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationU.S. Geological SurveyEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsAntimonyArsenicSurface waterGeologySedimentGroundwaterEnvironmental chemistryMineralogyEnvironmental scienceChemistryEnvironmental engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetic mineral deposits in the Tintina Gold Province are generally characterized by high concentrations of arsenic and antimony in their mineral assemblage. A total of 347 samples (ground water, surface water, and stream sediment) were collected to investigate the distribution and mobility of arsenic and antimony in the environment near known mineral deposits. Samples were collected from east to west at Keno Hill and Brewery Creek, Yukon, Canada; and Cleary Hill, True North, Scrafford Mine, Fairbanks, Ryan Lode, Stampede Creek, Slate Creek, and Donlin Creek, all in Alaska. Surface-and ground-water samples are all slightly acidic to near-neutral in pH (5-8), have a wide range in specific conductance (surface water 17-2,980 microsiemens per centimeter and ground water 170-2,940 microsiemens per centimeter), and show elevated dissolved arsenic and antimony concentrations

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific investigations reportSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207