Comparison of sample preparation methods for stable isotope analysis of dissolved sulphate in forested watersheds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pretreatment methods for measuring stable sulphur (δ(34)S) and oxygen (δ(18)O) isotope ratios of dissolved sulphate from watersheds have evolved throughout the last few decades. The current study evaluated if there are differences in the measured stable S and O isotope values of dissolved sulphate from forested watersheds when pretreated using three different methods: Method 1 (M1): adsorb sulphate on anion exchange resins and send directly to isotope facility; Method 2 (M2): adsorb sulphate on anion exchange resins, extract sulphate from anion exchange resins, and send the produced BaSO(4) to the isotope facility; and Method 3 (M3): directly precipitate BaSO(4) without anion exchange resins with the precipitates being sent to the isotope facility. We found an excellent agreement of the δ(34)S(sulphate) values among all the three methods. However, some differences were observed in the δ(18)O(sulphate) values (M1 versus M2:-1.5 ‰; M1 versus M3:-1.2 ‰) associated with possible O contamination before isotope measurement. Several approaches are recommended to improve the pretreatment procedures for δ(18)O(sulphate) analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".