MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095007390 · doi:10.1017/s1431927609991322

Tephra from Ice—A Simple Method to Routinely Mount, Polish, and Quantitatively Analyze Sparse Fine Particles

2010· article· en· W2095007390 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen C. Kuehn, Duane Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTephraMountSimple (philosophy)Materials scienceGeologyVolcanoComputer scienceGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method involving a graphite substrate has been developed for the mounting and analysis of sparse, fine particles from a liquid suspension to enable improved study of volcanic ash (tephra) and atmospheric dust preserved in glacial ice. Unpolished grains may be studied by scanning electron microscope-energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM-EDS) at full vacuum without the need for a conductive coating due to the close proximity of the underlying graphite. The same grains in the same relative positions may be subsequently examined in polished mounts by a variety of methods including SEM-EDS, electron probe microanalysis, laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy, secondary ion mass spectrometry, and optical microscopy. Particles as small as 3-5 microm may be routinely and easily prepared for analysis as polished grains, and particles of significantly different sizes may be exposed simultaneously. The general approach also offers significant flexibility, including both single- and multiple-sample mounts, and may be adjusted to suit a variety of samples and analytical methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207