Review of footnotes and annotations to the 1949–2013 tables of standard atomic weights and tables of isotopic compositions of the elements (IUPAC Technical Report)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights uses annotations given in footnotes that are an integral part of the Tables of Standard Atomic Weights to alert users to the possibilities of quite extraordinary occurrences, as well as sources with abnormal atomic-weight values outside an otherwise acceptable range. The basic need for footnotes to the Standard Atomic Weights Table and equivalent annotations to the Table of Isotopic Compositions of the Elements arises from the necessity to provide users with information that is relevant to one or more elements, but that cannot be provided using numerical data in columns. Any desire to increase additional information conveyed by annotations to these Tables is tempered by the need to preserve a compact format and a style that can alert users, who would not be inclined to consult either the last full element-by-element review or the full text of a current Standard Atomic Weights of the Elements report. Since 1989, the footnotes of the Tables of Standard Atomic Weights and the annotations in column 5 of the Table of Isotopic Compositions of the Elements have been harmonized by use of three lowercase footnotes, “g”, “m”, and “r”, that signify geologically exceptionally specimens (“g”), modified isotopic compositions in material subjected to undisclosed or inadvertent isotopic fractionation (“m”), and the range in isotopic composition of normal terrestrial material prevents more precise atomic-weight value being given (“r”). As some elements are assigned intervals for their standard atomic-weight values (applies to 12 elements since 2009), footnotes “g” and “r” are no longer needed for these elements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".