GGR Critical Review of Analytical Developments in 2004–2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005 Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research embarked upon a new initiative for its readers. Key researchers in various fields of geoanalytical technique development and their application were identified and invited to provide reviews pertinent to their expertise. As noted in the first of these publications “…instead of revisiting the historical context or decades of development in each analytical technique, the goal here has been to capture a snapshot of “hot topics” across a range of fields as represented in the… literature” (Hergt et al . 2005). Rather than prepare an annual review, a decision was taken earlier this year to provide a biennial summary of progress and accomplishments, in this case for the years 2004–2005. The principal techniques employed in Earth and environmental sciences are covered here, and include laser ablation and multicollector ICP‐MS, ICP‐AES, thermal ionisation and secondary ion mass spectrometry, as well as neutron activation analysis, X‐ray fluorescence and atomic absorption spectrometry. A comprehensive review of the development of reference materials, often essential to these techniques, is also provided. The contributions assembled serve both to keep readers informed of advances they may be unfamiliar with, but also as a means of showcasing examples of the breadth and depth of work being conducted in these fields.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".