Evaluation of <i>In Situ</i> Heterogeneity of Elements in Solids: Implications for Analytical Geochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A general method for the evaluation of in situ heterogeneity of geochemical materials is described and the significance of the results discussed, by using three case studies and earlier data sets. The heterogeneity of Pb in soil (expressed as RSD due to sampling, RSD samp ) varies from < 5 to > 100% between different sites, in a way that relates to the mode of deposition of the element. The heterogeneity of an element also varies systematically as a function of the distance scale at some sites. This variation can be modelled using linear regression, accounting for over 90% of the experimental variance, at seven scales over three orders of magnitude. Variation in heterogeneity between elements at the same site, seems to be somewhat diagnostic of the origin of the element, lithogenic being less than anthropogenic, although the later is also being modified by the mode of deposition. Where the heterogeneity is large (RSD > 30%), it is proposed that it can be expressed more accurately as a heterogeneity factor (10 GSDsamp ), to reflect its frequency distribution, which is positively skewed towards higher concentration values.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".