Comparison between Nickel‐Sulfur Fire Assay Te Co‐precipitation and Isotope Dilution with High‐Pressure Asher Acid Digestion for the Determination of Platinum‐Group Elements, Rhenium and Gold
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accurate determination of platinum‐group elements (PGE), rhenium and gold is important in both fundamental research and ore deposit studies. Questions have been raised by some authors as to whether the nickel‐sulfur fire assay technique (NiS‐FA) efficiently collects all the PGE. On the other hand, most isotope dilution (ID) techniques can only treat small test portion masses (2 g was used for high‐pressure asher digestion; HPA) and this makes them more vulnerable to nugget effects. We determined PGE concentrations in ten reference materials with the aim of comparing the performance characteristics of the two methods. Both methods determine Ru, Pd, Os, Ir and Pt and we found that there were no significant systematic differences in the recovery. The advantages of NiS‐FA were that: (a) it is capable of determining Rh and Au; (b) the relatively large test portion mass (15 g) reduces the nugget effect and (c) it is faster and less expensive than HPA‐ID. The advantages of HPA‐ID were that: (a) it determined Re and (b) it had low level blanks, lower detection limits and hence better precision in low‐level homogeneous samples. Each technique had advantages and limitations; they should be considered as complementary rather than competing techniques.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it