MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591408558 · doi:10.1002/xrs.2760

Curve‐fitting regression: improving light element quantification with XRF

2017· article· en· W2591408558 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueX-Ray Spectrometry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)Université de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPfizer CanadaPfizer
KeywordsCalibrationPartial least squares regressionAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Mean squared errorChemistryStatisticsRoot mean squareMathematicsRegressionPhysicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light elements are hard to quantify by X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry because, after a photoelectric excitation, they predominantly relax emitting Auger electrons, greatly reducing the fluorescence count thus limiting the signal‐to‐noise ratios (SNR) observed. Low SNR values have deleterious outcomes in model building. Notable in ordinary least squares (OLS) regression based on peak height, they also affect more robust regression methods, such as partial least squares regression. While low SNR can also be observed with low concentrations of heavier elements, this paper focuses on boron. To overcome the low SNR hurdle, curve‐fitting regression (CFR), a novel method elaborated in this paper, seeks to fit full scans with summed Gaussian curves. The methodology was illustrated with pressed microcrystalline cellulose spiked with sodium tetraborate decahydrate (borax) powder samples. The calibration set ranged from 0% to 21.5% m / m boron, and a PANalytical Axios wavelength dispersive X‐ray fluorescence system with rhodium source was used to perform the tests. A calibration curve with determination coefficient ( R 2 ) = 0.990 and root mean square error of calibration (RMSEC) = 0.7% m / m was produced with CFR versus RMSEC = 1.2% m / m with OLS regression. Validity of the method was tested with a set of 17 pearled samples containing a mixture of different oxides. Root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) of 0.1% m / m was obtained with the validation set, using CFR against RMSEP = 0.99% m / m with OLS regression, thus illustrating the proposed method's potential. Copyright © 2017 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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
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