A Comparative Study of Five Reference Materials and the Lombard Meteorite for the Determination of the Platinum‐Group Elements and Gold by LA‐ICP‐MS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A range of independently characterised reference materials (RMs) for LA‐ICP‐MS, used for the determination of the platinum‐group elements (PGE) and Au in a sulfide matrix, were analysed and compared: 8b, PGE‐A, NiS‐3, Po727‐T1, Po724‐T and the Lombard meteorite. The newly developed RM NiS‐3 was used as the RM for the calibration of all LA‐ICP‐MS analyses and the measured concentrations of the other RMs compared against their published concentrations. This data were also used to assess the consistency of concentrations calibrated against the different RMs. It was found that Po727‐T1 and 8b produced results that were comparable, within uncertainty, for all elements. Po727‐T1 also produced consistent results with NiS‐3 for all elements. All other RMs showed differences for some elements, especially Ru in Po724‐T, and Os, Ir and Au in PGE‐A. The homogeneity of the PGE and Au in each RM was assessed, by comparing the precision of multiple LA‐ICP‐MS spot analyses with the average uncertainty of the signal. Po724‐T, Po727‐T1 and the Lombard meteorite were found to be homogeneous for all elements, but 8b, PGE‐A and NiS‐3 were heterogeneous for some elements. This is the first direct comparison between a range of independently characterised PGE and Au LA‐ICP‐MS RMs.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".