MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343102796 · doi:10.1002/sca.21302

Can we detect Li K X‐ray in lithium compounds using energy dispersive spectroscopy?

2016· article· en· W2343102796 on OpenAlex

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

VenueScanning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHydro-Québec
FundersShivalik College of Engineering
KeywordsLithium (medication)Scanning electron microscopeSpectroscopyMonte Carlo methodAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceMetalEnergy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopyElectronAtomic physicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Lithium is the key element for the development of battery and new technology and the development of an analytical technique to spatially and quantitatively resolve this element is of key importance. Detection of Li K in pure metallic lithium is now possible in the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) with newly designed Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS). However, this work is clearly showing, for the first time using EDS, the detection of Li K in several binary lithium compounds (LiH, Li 3 N, Li 2 S, LiF and LiCl). Experimental Li K X‐rays intensity is compared with a specially modified Monte Carlo simulation program showing discrepancies between theoretical and experimental Li K measurements. The effect of chemical bounding on the X‐rays emission using density functional theory with the all‐electron linearized augmented plane wave is showing that the emission of Li K from the binary compounds studied should be, at least, 12 times lower than in metallic Li. SCANNING 38:571–578, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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