MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059341160 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12729

Preparation of a Ytterbium‐tagged Gunshot Residue Standard for Quality Control in the Forensic Analysis of <scp>GSR</scp>

2015· article· en· W2059341160 on OpenAlexaff
N.G.R. Hearns, Denis N. Laflèche, P. Mark L. Sandercock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsVanier CollegeRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYtterbiumMicroanalysisMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeNeodymiumAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryChromatographyComposite materialOpticsPhysicsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preparation of a ytterbium-tagged gunshot residue (GSR) reference standard for scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic (SEM-EDS) microanalysis is reported. Two different chemical markers, ytterbium and neodymium, were evaluated by spiking the primers of 38 Special ammunition cartridges (no propellant, no projectile) and discharging them onto 12.7 mm diameter aluminum SEM pin stubs. Following SEM-EDS microanalysis, the majority of tri-component particles containing lead, barium, and antimony (PbBaSb) were successfully tagged with the chemical marker. Results demonstrate a primer spiked with 0.75% weight percent of ytterbium nitrate affords PbBaSb particles characteristic of GSR with a ytterbium inclusion efficiency of between 77% and 100%. Reproducibility of the method was verified, and durability of the ytterbium-tagged tri-component particles under repeated SEM-EDS analysis was also tested. The ytterbium-tagged PbBaSb particles impart synthetic traceability to a GSR reference standard and are suitable for analysis alongside case work samples, as a positive control for quality assurance purposes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207