Quantification of Lithium and Mineralogical Mapping in Crushed Ore Samples Using Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy
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
This article reports on the quantification of lithium and mineralogical mapping in crushed lithium ore by laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) using two different calibration methods. Thirty crushed ore samples from a pegmatite lithium deposit were used in this study. Representative samples containing the abundant minerals were taken from these crushed ores and mixed with resin to make polished disks. These disks were first analyzed by TIMA (TESCAN Integrated Mineral Analyzer) and then by a LIBS ECORE analyzer to determine the minerals. Afterwards, each of the thirty crushed ore samples (<10 mm) were poured into rectangular containers and analyzed by the ECORE analyzer, then mineral mapping was produced on the scanned surfaces using the mineral library established on the polished sections. For the first method the lithium concentrations were inferred from the empirical mineral chemistry formula, whereas the second one consisted of building a conventional calibration curve with the crushed material to predict the lithium concentration in unknown crushed materials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it