The INTAV intercomparison of electron-beam microanalysis of glass by tephrochronology laboratories, results and recommendation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The INternational focus group on Tephrochronology And Volcanism (INTAV) of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) has conducted an intercomparison of tephrochronology laboratories with electron-beam microanalytical data on volcanic glasses submitted from 27 instruments at 24 institutions in 9 countries. This assessment includes most active tephrochronology laboratories and represents the largest intercomparison exercise yet conducted by the tephrochronology community. The intercomparison was motivated by the desire to assess the quality of data currently being produced and to stimulate improvements in analytical protocols and data reporting that will increase the efficacy of tephra fingerprinting and correlation. Participating laboratories were each supplied with a mount containing three samples for analysis: (1) rhyolitic Lipari obsidian ID3506, (2) phonolitic Sheep Track tephra from Mt. Edziza, British Columbia, Canada, and (3) basaltic Laki 1783 A.D. tephra. A fourth sample, rhyolitic Old Crow tephra, was also distributed. Most laboratories submitted extensive details of their analytical procedures in addition to their analytical results. Most used some combination of defocused or rastered beam and modest beam current to reduce alkali element migration. Approximately two-thirds reported that they routinely analyze one or more secondary standards to evaluate data quality and instrument performance. Despite substantial variety in procedures and calibration standards, most mean concentrations compare favorably between laboratories and with other data. Typically, four or fewer data contributions had means for a given element on a given sample that differed by more than ±2 standard deviations from the overall means. Obtaining accurate Na2O concentrations for the phonolitic tephra proved to be a challenge for many laboratories. Only one-half of the data sets had means within ±1 standard deviation of the ∼8.2 wt% Na2O value obtained by other methods. One mean is higher and 14 are lower. Three of the data set means fall below 7 wt% Na2O. Most submissions had relative precision better than 1–5% for the major elements. For low-abundance elements, the precision varied substantially with relative standard deviations as small as 10% and as large as 110%. Because of the strong response to this project, the tephrochronology community now has a large comparative data set derived from common reference materials that will facilitate improvements in accuracy and precision and which can enable improved use of published data produced by the participating laboratories. Finally, recommendations are provided for improving accuracy, precision, and reporting of electron-beam microanalytical data from glasses.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,006 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».