MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109218908 · doi:10.1351/pac-rep-10-06-02

Isotopic compositions of the elements 2009 (IUPAC Technical Report)

2011· article· en· W2109218908 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Berglund, Michael E. Wieser

Bibliographic record

VenuePure and Applied Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomical and nuclear sciences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMinisterie van Infrastructuur en MilieuInternational Atomic Energy AgencyGovernment of Canada
KeywordsChemical nomenclatureChemistryIsotopeAtomic massTable (database)Natural abundanceEnvironmental chemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Mass spectrometryMineralogyNuclear physicsOrganic chemistryDatabaseChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) completed its last update of the isotopic compositions of the elements as determined by isotope-ratio mass spectrometry in 2009. That update involved a critical evaluation of the published literature and forms the basis of the table of the isotopic compositions of the elements (TICE) presented here. For each element, TICE includes evaluated data from the “best measurement” of the isotope abundances in a single sample, along with a set of representative isotope abundances and uncertainties that accommodate known variations in normal terrestrial materials. The representative isotope abundances and uncertainties generally are consistent with the standard atomic weight of the element A r (E) and its uncertainty U [ A r (E)] recommended by CIAAW in 2007.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.022

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations870
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure and Applied ChemistrySame topicAstronomical and nuclear sciencesFrench-language works237,207