Data Reduction of Laser Ablation Split‐Stream (LASS) Analyses Using Newly Developed Features Within Iolite: With Applications to Lu‐Hf + U‐Pb in Detrital Zircon and Sm‐Nd +U‐Pb in Igneous Monazite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A robust platform to view and integrate multiple data sets collected simultaneously is required to realize the utility and potential of the Laser Ablation Split‐Stream (LASS) method. This capability, until now, has been unavailable and practitioners have had to laboriously process each data set separately, making it challenging to take full advantage of the benefits of LASS. We describe a new program for handling multiple mass spectrometric data sets collected simultaneously, designed specifically for the LASS technique, by which a laser aerosol is been split into two or more separate “streams” to be measured on separate mass spectrometers. New features withinIolite( https://iolite-software.com ) enable the capability of loading, synchronizing, viewing, and reducing two or more data sets acquired simultaneously, as multiple DRSs (data reduction schemes) can be run concurrently. While this version ofIoliteaccommodates any combination of simultaneously collected mass spectrometer data, we demonstrate the utility using case studies where U‐Pb and Lu‐Hf isotope composition of zircon, and U‐Pb and Sm‐Nd isotope composition of monazite were analyzed simultaneously, in crystals showing complex isotopic zonation. These studies demonstrate the importance of being able to view and integrate simultaneously acquired data sets, especially for samples with complicated zoning and decoupled isotope systematics, in order to extract accurate and geologically meaningful isotopic and compositional data. This contribution provides instructions and examples for handling simultaneously collected laser ablation data. An instructional video is also provided. The updated Iolite software will help to fully develop the applications of both LASS and multi‐instrument mass spectrometric measurement capabilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".