GGR Critical Review of Analytical Developments in 2006–2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005 the Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research editorial team, in the true spirit of scientific endeavour, embarked on an experiment of our own. We decided to trial a new kind of review, somewhat different from those more typically observed in journals, and one that would provide readers with a summary of analytical developments across a broad range of topics appropriate to the Earth sciences. The first contribution of this kind appeared in 2005, and reported on developments in 2003 (Hergt et al. 2005). The second, this time a biennial review, was published in 2006 and reported on highlights of the 2004 and 2005 literature (Hergt et al . 2006). Based on reprint requests, positive remarks at conferences and strong citations we consider the experiment a resounding success and proudly present here the third in this series. This comprises six individual review sections that cover the main analytical technologies and topical application fields in geoanalysis and geochemistry, including geological and environmental reference materials, ICP‐thermal and secondary ionisation‐mass spectrometry, as well as neutron activation analysis, X‐ray fluorescence and atomic absorption spectrometry.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".