MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

X-Ray Absorption Near Edge Structure Spectra as a basis for the speciation of lead

2009· article· en· W2124915165 on OpenAlexaff
Gudrun Lisa Bovenkamp, Alexander Prange, Amitava Roy, W. W. Schumacher, J. Hormes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXANESSpectral lineSpectroscopyAbsorption spectroscopyResolution (logic)Coordination numberEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionAbsorption (acoustics)Analytical Chemistry (journal)X-ray spectroscopyX-ray absorption fine structureK-edgeChemistryShell (structure)Absorption edgeMaterials scienceAtomic physicsIonOpticsPhysicsOptoelectronicsBand gapComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For this study several inorganic lead (II) compounds were measured at the Pb-L -(13035 eV), L - (15860 eV) and M - (2484 eV) edge using X-Ray Absorption Near Edge Structure Spectroscopy (XANES) to determine experimentally which edge is most sensitive to the coordination environment. Each edge probes a different electronic configuration because of the selection rules and has a different resolution because of life-time broadening. Pb-L -XANES spectra are only sensitive to the first coordination shell. Pb-M -XANES spectra show a better energy resolution which is due to decreased lifetime broadening, but the pure lead spectra are also sensitive only to the first coordination shell. Spectra at the Pb-L -edge show the highest sensitivity: differences in coordination out to the third shell could be distinguished. Therefore, even though Pb-L - and M -edges have some advantages, because of physical conditions compared to the L -edge, these advantages do not result in increased sensitivity. © 2009 IOP Publishing Ltd. 3 1 5 1 5 3 1 5 3

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207