MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385073210 · doi:10.1093/micmic/ozad067.100

Evaluating Consensus in Experimental K-ratios from over 40 WDS and EDS Measurement Systems

2023· article· en· W4385073210 sur OpenAlexaff
William O. Nachlas, Aurélien Moy, Nicholas W. M. Ritchie, John Donovan, John Fournelle, Julien Allaz, Renat Almeev, Emery Bullock, Joel DesOrmeau, Karsten Goemann, R. Hoffmann, Petras Jokubauskas, Niels Jöns, Thomas Lam, Andrew J. Locock, Daniel M. Ruscitto, Edward P. Vicenzi, Anette von der Handt, Boubacar Wade, Dapeng Zhang

Notice bibliographique

RevueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Établissements canadiensUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLibrary sciencePolitical scienceHistoryComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The k-ratio compares the X-ray intensity of a particular emission line between two materials. To convert raw X-ray intensity emitted from a sample to elemental concentration, the k-ratio is measured for the sample relative to a standard and corrected for matrix effects. The k-ratio is theoretically independent of instrument or detector type, beam conditions, or other variables associated with the measurement experiment. Thus the k-ratio measured between a pair of high-purity, stoichiometric crystals should be a universal constant, and community measurements of the same materials should converge on consensus values [1]. To test the universality of experimental k-ratios we acquired raw X-ray intensities from pairs of synthetic single crystals using multiple different labs and measurement systems. A total of 29 participating labs from academic, federal, and commercial institutions representing 10 countries received samples for analysis of experimental k-ratios. Participants acquired Wavelength Dispersive Spectrometry (WDS) data from 22 Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA) instruments and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) data from 18 EDS detectors mounted on EPMA or Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) instruments. Analytical k-ratios were measured for Mg-Kα, Al-Kα, and O-Kα from three high-purity synthetic oxides: MgO, Al2O3, and MgAl2O4. Each participating lab received a polished, carbon-coated mount containing an aliquot from the same synthetic crystal with specific instructions to acquire raw X-ray intensities following identical measurement procedures. Data were acquired on both Cameca and JEOL EPMA instruments ranging in age from >35 to <1 years since installation. When available, k-ratios for Al and Mg were measured and aggregated from multiple spectrometers measured with both large- (LTAP/TAPL/TAPH) and normal- (TAP) sized diffraction crystals. Standardized procedures involved acquisition of wavescans to determine background offset positions and collection of raw X-ray counts acquired under specified beam conditions, detector settings, and counting times. Analytical k-ratios acquired with WDS from 22 EPMA instruments are shown in Fig. 1. The k-ratios show overall excellent agreement, with most labs reporting k-ratios that fall within 1% of the sample mean. Two laboratories reported k-ratios that differ by >2% from the mean value. One of these outlier laboratories (FIGMAS 1-02) identified a malfunction in instrument performance that affected Mg analysis, and following necessary repairs submitted a corrected dataset, as indicated in Fig. 1. Instructions for acquisition of WDS k-ratios involved aggregating k-ratios from the same type of diffraction crystal measured by multiple spectrometers. However, this could potentially obscure errors with individual spectrometers if k-ratios are not in agreement. Careful comparison of k-ratio data from the same diffraction crystal on multiple spectrometers can provide valuable information for evaluating instrument performance. Analytical k-ratios were acquired from 18 EDS detectors mounted on both SEM and EPMA instruments. Data were acquired using EDS detectors from five different manufacturers (Thermo, Oxford, Bruker, JEOL, Amptek) mounted with take-off angles ranging from 29-40 degrees. EDS k-ratios were normalized to a take-off angle of 40 degrees for direct comparison. Raw X-ray intensity determined from an EDS spectrum is a function of the peak integration method, and there can be slight differences in EDS k-ratios depending on which method of background correction is used. EDS-k-ratios reported here are calculated using the net X-ray intensity calculated by analysis software, thus it is expected that some of the uncertainty in EDS k-ratios could be attributed to differences in peak fitting algorithms. Determination of a universal k-ratio from EDS data will require off-line processing of raw EDS spectra using a consistent approach for peak fitting. Results of this round robin experiment indicate that the microanalysis community is capable of converging on consensus k-ratio values using measurements from a variety of instruments and detectors. The consensus results show good agreement with theoretical k-ratios determined with PENELOPE, DTSA II, and BadgerFilm simulations. We advocate for developing a universal standard mount containing a pair of materials which form the fundamental k-ratio for each element and a global community database of k-ratios to advance the accuracy and traceability of quantitative X-ray microanalysis. K-ratios for Mg, Al, and O measured with Wavelength Dispersive Spectrometry (WDS) from 22 different instruments. WDS data were acquired at 15 kV and 20 nA. The solid line shows the mean value of all participants. The dashed and dash-dotted lines show +/- 2% and +/- 5% from the sample average, respectively. The grey dashed line shows the theoretical k-ratio calculated from BadgerFilm simulation. K-ratios for Mg, Al, and O measured with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) from 18 different detectors. EDS data were acquired at 15 kV with approximately 20% dead time. All EDS k-ratios were normalized for take-off angle to enable direct comparison of results. The solid line shows the mean value of all participants. The dashed lines show +/- 2% from the sample average. The dot-dashed lines show +/- 5% from the sample average. The grey dashed line shows the theoretical k-ratio calculated from BadgerFilm simulation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,097
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,097
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,510

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0970,146
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0070,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0040,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisMême sujetGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsTravaux en français237 207