MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999577832 · doi:10.1346/ccmn.2006.0540609

Some Successful Approaches to Quantitative Mineral Analysis as Revealed by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Reynolds Cup Contest

2006· article· en· W1999577832 on OpenAlexafffund
Oladipo Omotoso, Douglas K. McCarty, Stephen Hillier, R. Kleeberg

Bibliographic record

VenueClays and Clay Minerals · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsDevon Energy (Canada)Natural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsCONTESTBiogeosciencesMineralReynolds numberGeologyMineralogyGeochemistryChemistryPhysicsThermodynamicsEarth sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Details of the quantitative techniques successfully applied to artificial rock mixtures distributed for the third Clay Minerals Society Reynolds Cup (RC) contest are presented. Participants each received three samples, two containing 17 minerals each and a third containing ten minerals. The true composition of the samples was unknown to all participants during the contest period. The results submitted were ranked by summing the deviations from the actual compositions (bias). The top three finishers used mainly X-ray diffraction (XRD) for identification and quantification. The winner obtained an average bias of 11.3% per sample by using an internal standard and modified single-line reference intensity ratio (RIR) method based on pure mineral standards. Full-pattern fitting by genetic algorithm was used to measure the integrated intensity of the diagnostic single-line reflections chosen for quantification. Elemental-composition optimization was used separately to constrain phase concentrations that were uncertain because the reference mineral standards were lacking or not ideal. Cation exchange capacity, oriented-sample XRD analysis, and thermogravimetric analysis were also used as supplementary techniques. The second-place finisher obtained an average bias of 13.9%, also by using an RIR method, but without an added internal standard and with intensity measured by whole-pattern fitting. The third-place finisher, who obtained an average bias of 15.3%, used the Rietveld method for quantification and identification of minor phases (using difference plots). This participant also used scanning electron microscopy (with X-ray microanalysis) to identify minor components and verify the composition of structures used in Rietveld analysis. As in the previous contests, successful quantification appears to be more dependent on analyst experience than on the analytical technique or software used.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations219
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClays and Clay MineralsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207