Trace Element Data for Gold, Iridium and Silver in Seventy Geochemical Reference Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New concentrations for Au, Ir and Ag obtained by instrumental neutron activation analysis are presented for seventy geochemical reference materials. Results in agreement with literature values for Au and Ir down to concentrations of a few ng g −1 were obtained. For Au and Ir concentrations above 10 ng g −1 , the repeatability of replicate analyses of reference materials was mostly better than 10%. For concentrations between 1 and 10 ng g −1 the RSD for Ir was 10–30%, whereas for Au it was higher and more variable (20–50%). In addition, concentrations for Cd and Hg are presented for some of the same reference materials. The high RSD at relatively high concentrations seen in gold for some RMs (e.g., WMG‐1, WMS‐1) did not exist for Ir and suggests homogeneity for this platinum‐group element at the sub‐sample size used in this study. For the following eight RMs, mostly ultramafic rocks (CHR‐Pt+, OREAS‐13P, OREAS‐14P, PCC‐1, UMT‐1, WMG‐1, WMS‐1, WPR‐1), Ir measurements agreed within ± 10% of mostly certified or recommended concentrations, which ranged from 2 ng g −1 to 6 μg g −1 . For the reference material UB‐N, iridium concentration compared favourably to published results obtained by isotope dilution ICP‐MS methods and a previously unrecognised heterogeneity is inferred for Au, Hg and Sb, but not for the other measured elements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".