MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954260732 · doi:10.1520/jfs15516j

Compositional Variation in Bullet Lead Manufacture

2002· article· en· W1954260732 on OpenAlexaff
RD Koons, David M. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLead (geology)Variation (astronomy)Forensic engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concentrations of antimony, copper, tin, arsenic, silver, bismuth, and cadmium in lead alloys produced by two smelters and one ammunition manufacturer were determined using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. These element concentrations were used to measure the variations in composition of lead products that result from various processes involved in the manufacture of lead projectiles. In general, when a pot containing molten lead is used to cast a number of objects, these objects are similar, although not necessarily analytically indistinguishable in their elemental compositions. In each subsequent step in the processing of lead at the smelter and at the ammunition manufacturer, the size of an individual homogeneous melt of lead decreases as more distinct compositions are formed as a result of remelting and mixing of sources, including lead scrap. The ammunition manufacturer in this study produced at least 10 compositionally distinguishable groups of bullet wire in a 19.7-h period. The largest group could potentially be used to produce a maximum of 1.3 million compositionally indistinguishable 40 grain bullets.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations40
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207