MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measurement of SIMS Instrumental Mass Fractionation of Pb Isotopes During Zircon Dating

2009· article· en· W1986702671 on OpenAlexaff
Richard A. Stern, S. Bodorkos, Sandra L. Kamo, Arthur H. Hickman, Fernando Corfú

Bibliographic record

VenueGeostandards and Geoanalytical Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZirconRadiogenic nuclideIsotopeFractionationGeologyPrecambrianReproducibilityAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Isotope fractionationMineralogyGeochemistryChemistryEnvironmental chemistryMantle (geology)PhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An igneous zircon reference material (OG1) was characterised for U‐Pb isotopes by ID‐TIMS, and utilised to evaluate SIMS (SHRIMP) instrumental mass fractionation (IMF) of radiogenic Pb isotopes ( 207 Pb*/ 206 Pb*). The TIMS 207 Pb*/ 206 Pb* reference value for OG1 was 0.29907 ± 0.00011 (95% confidence limit), 3465.4 ± 0.6 Ma. The high 207 Pb* (∼ 30 μg g −1 ), negligible common Pb, and isotopic homogeneity permitted precise (± 1–2‰) 207 Pb*/ 206 Pb* measurements within the analytical sessions. External reproducibility of mean 207 Pb*/ 206 Pb* ratios between sessions was demonstrated for one instrument, yielding a mean IMF of +0.87 ± 0.49‰. The mean 207 Pb*/ 206 Pb* ratios between instruments were dispersed beyond uncertainties, with session IMF values from +3.6 ± 1.7‰ to −2.4 ± 1.3‰, and a grand mean IMF value (twenty‐six sessions) of +0.70 ± 0.52‰, indicating a tendency towards elevated 207 Pb*/ 206 Pb*. The specific causes of variability in IMF are unclear, but generally reflect subtle differences in analytical conditions. The common practice in SIMS of assuming that IMF for Pb + is insignificant could result in systematic age biases and underestimated uncertainties, of critical importance for precise correlation of Precambrian events. Nevertheless, a zircon RM such as OG1 can be readily incorporated into routine dating to improve 207 Pb*/ 206 Pb* accuracy and external reproducibility.

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations398
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeostandards and Geoanalytical ResearchSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207