MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963434090 · doi:10.1088/1681-7575/ab2995

Determination of the isotopic composition of hafnium using MC-ICPMS

2019· article· en· W2963434090 on OpenAlexaff
Shuoyun Tong, Juris Meija, Lian Zhou, Zoltán Mester, Lu Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyChina Scholarship CouncilNational Institutes of Natural SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHafniumIsotopeFractionationRheniumIsotope fractionationInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryMass spectrometryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Isotope analysisAtomic massChemistryRadiochemistryGeologyEnvironmental chemistryZirconiumNuclear physicsInorganic chemistryChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the numerous important applications of hafnium isotopes in geological science, and the advances in multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-ICPMS), hafnium still lacks calibrated measurements of its isotope ratios and, in turn, isotopic abundances and atomic weight. In this study, we determined the isotopic composition of hafnium in four commercial hafnium reagents, including a commonly used hafnium standard (JMC-475) and a NRC candidate isotopic reference material (HALF-1) by MC-ICPMS. The state-of-the-art regression model with NIST SRM 989 isotopic rhenium as calibrator was used to correct instrumental isotopic fractionation without reliance on other hafnium standards, normalizing isotope ratios, or exponential mass-bias fractionation model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetrologiaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207