MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138174521 · doi:10.1002/sia.3173

On the choice of the residual norm function in the interpretation of ARXPS data by regularized fitting

2010· article· en· W2138174521 on OpenAlexafffund
R.W. Paynter, Maxime Rondeau

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatisticGoodness of fitResidualMathematicsStatisticsSpectral lineAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Raw dataInterpretation (philosophy)Computational physicsChemistryPhysicsAlgorithmComputer scienceChromatographyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Angle‐resolved X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (ARXPS) data taken on a polystyrene film exposed to a nitrogen plasma are interpreted by the fitting of regularized depth profiles. Three ways of measuring the goodness of fit are compared—the χ2 statistic with variances drawn from the raw spectra, the χ2 statistic with variances drawn from the concentration figures obtained from the data analysis, and a simple sum of the squared differences (ssd) that does not require variances to be calculated. It is shown that for these data, the depth profiles obtained using an objective method for the choice of the regularization parameter are essentially identical irrespective of whether or how the variances are introduced into the calculation. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207