A simple method for quantitative analysis of elements by WD‐XRF using variable dilution factors in fusion bead technique for geologic specimens
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common approach in the quantitative analysis of geological samples by X‐ray fluorescence is to establish calibration lines for elements of interest by using several reference materials (RMs) and/or the combination of RMs and pure chemicals. Herein, we introduce an alternative to use only two RMs, to establish a calibration application. Variation of the dilution factor is employed to generate a dynamic range of concentrations for each RM and to evenly furnish the calibration lines to analyze certain matrices. A wide range of dilution factors were employed from 2–54 times dilution (with respect to the flux to sample ratios). Calibration lines for the major elements including: Si, Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, Na, Mn, and Ti show an extremely high level of linearity with all elements. R 2 values greater than 0.9990 were obtained for each analyzed element. The calibration application was validated by checking against a variety of geological RMs including petroleum and carbonate rich shale (SGR‐1), Muscovite rich marine shale (SBC‐1), metamorphic rock (SDC‐1), carbonatite (COQ‐1), and types of igneous rocks (GSP‐2, BCR‐2, AGV‐2, QLO‐1, and W‐2). Mixtures of Alumina and Silica (ARG‐1 and ARG‐2) and pure SiO 2 beads were also analyzed to further check the application. Rigorous statistical analysis on the RMs confirms the reliability of the calibration application for the employed matrices. Copyright © 2016 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it