MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2507370356 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2016-0063

Validation of depth-profiling LA-ICP-MS in otolith applications

2016· article· en· W2507370356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manna L. Warburton, Malcolm Reid, Claudine H. Stirling, Gerry Closs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOtolithMicrochemistryEnvironmental scienceSeawaterMineralogyGeologyChemistryOceanographyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Otolith microchemistry is a widely used technique for elucidating life history patterns in fishes. This typically involves sectioning the otolith and collecting elemental signatures via laser ablation. But this requires time-intensive handling that may influence results. As an alternative to traditional cut–polish–ablate techniques, we tested depth-profiling laser ablation, which offers reduced handling and contamination risk. To validate depth profiling as a robust method for collecting trace element otolith microchemistry data, we constructed composite otoliths using otolith materials from fishes of different origins (fresh water, seawater). Test ablations were conducted on composite diadromous otoliths at a range of spot sizes and pit depths. We measured tailing and fractionation effects in the following elements: Na, Mg, K, Mn, Zn, Rb, Sr, and Ba. Given appropriate instrument parameters, depth profiling can accurately collect elemental concentration data both between and within top and bottom layers of an otolith composite across a range of spot sizes and pit depths. Analytical power and lag effects were dependent on spot size, highlighting the importance of optimizing spot size based on sample morphology and instrument parameters.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→