Intercomparison of Boron Isotope and Concentration Measurements. Part II: Evaluation of Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse (IGG), on behalf and with the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), prepared eight geological materials (three natural waters and five rocks and minerals), intended for a blind interlaboratory comparison of measurements of boron isotopic composition and concentration. The materials were distributed to twenty seven laboratories ‐ virtually all those performing geochemical boron isotope analyses in the world ‐which agreed to participate in the intercomparison exercise. Only fifteen laboratories, however, ultimately submitted the isotopic and/or concentration results they obtained on the intercomparison materials. The results demonstrate that interlaboratory reproducibility is not well reflected by the precision values reported by the individual laboratories and this observation holds true for both boron concentration and isotopic composition. The reasons for the discrepancies include fractionations due to the chemical matrix of materials, relative shift of the zero position on the δ11B scale and a lack of well characterized materials for calibrating absolute boron content measurements. The intercomparison materials are now available at the IAEA (solid materials) and IGG (waters) for future distribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".