MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neutron Activation Analysis, Atomic Absorption and X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry Review for 2003

2005· article· en· W4231181211 on OpenAlexaff
L. Paul Bédard, Michael Wiedenbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueGeostandards and Geoanalytical Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron activation analysisX-ray fluorescenceMass spectrometryAtomic absorption spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)SynchrotronElemental analysisFluorescence spectrometryFluorescenceChemistryMaterials scienceRadiochemistryEnvironmental chemistryPhysicsChromatographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review for the year 2003 deals with three relatively well-established, mature, analytical techniques (neutron activation analysis, atomic absorption spectrometry and X-ray fluorescence spectrometry) that nevertheless remain very important for the characterisation of geological and environmental samples. Developments in neutron activation analysis included modification to the technique in relation to the determination of platinum-group elements, as well as consideration of sample size in ore grade estimation. A considerable body of literature was published on the application of atomic absorption spectrometry in the analysis of environmental samples. Many of these proposed technical and methodological improvements, notably in extraction procedures. X-ray fluorescence spectrometry saw developments in in situ analysis, synchrotron micro-XRF (μ-SRXRF) and a confocal X-ray set-up for 3D elemental imaging. XRF technologies were used in the analysis of geological samples, reference materials, glasses, solutes and environmental 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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.015

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeostandards and Geoanalytical ResearchSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207