MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Matrix Corrections and Error Analysis in High‐Precision <scp>SIMS</scp><sup>18</sup><scp>O</scp>/<sup>16</sup><scp>O</scp> Measurements of <scp>C</scp>a–<scp>M</scp>g–<scp>F</scp>e Garnet

2013· article· en· W2136270511 on OpenAlex
Ryan B. Ickert, Richard A. Stern

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeostandards and Geoanalytical Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepeatabilityCalibrationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Matrix (chemical analysis)FractionationRange (aeronautics)Accuracy and precisionMicroprobePhysicsMaterials scienceChemistryMineralogyChromatographyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report technical and data treatment methods for making accurate, high‐precision measurements of 18 O / 16 O in C a– M g– F e garnet utilising the C ameca IMS 1280 multi‐collector ion microprobe. Matrix effects were similar to those shown by previous work, whereby C a abundance is correlated with instrumental mass fractionation ( IMF ). After correction for this effect, there appeared to be no significant secondary effect associated with M g/ F e 2+ for routine operational conditions. In contrast, investigation of the IMF associated with M n‐ or C r‐rich garnet showed that these substitutions are significant and require a more complex calibration scheme. The C a‐related calibration applied to low‐ C r, low‐ M n garnet was reproducible across different sample mounts and under a range of instrument settings and therefore should be applicable to similar instruments of this type. The repeatability of the measurements was often better than ± 0.2‰ (2 s ), a precision that is similar to the repeatability of bulk techniques. At this precision, the uncertainties due to spot‐to‐spot repeatability were at the same magnitude as those associated with matrix corrections (± 0.1–0.3‰) and the uncertainties in reference materials (± 0.1–0.2‰). Therefore, it is necessary to accurately estimate and propagate uncertainties associated with these parameters – in some cases, uncertainties in reference materials or matrix corrections dominate the uncertainty budget.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.262 · 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