MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376636994 · doi:10.1093/micmic/ozad050

A New Method for Dead Time Calibration and a New Expression for Correction of WDS Intensities for Microanalysis

2023· article· en· W4376636994 on OpenAlexaff
J Donovan, Aurélien Moy, Anette von der Handt, Z. Gainsforth, James Maner, William O. Nachlas, John Fournelle

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroanalysisCalibrationExpression (computer science)Dead timeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceChemistryPhysicsComputer scienceEnvironmental chemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observed photon count rates must be corrected for detector dead time effects for accurate quantification, especially at high count rates. We present the "constant k-ratio" method, a new approach for calibrating dead time for wavelength dispersive spectrometers by measuring k-ratios as a function of beam current. The method is based on the observation that for a given emission line at a specific take-off angle and electron beam energy, the intensity ratio from two materials containing the element should remain constant as a function of beam current, if the dead time calibration is accurate. The method has the advantage that it does not rely on the linearity of the beam current picoammeter, yet also allows the analyst to evaluate the picoammeter linearity, another critical parameter in EPMA calibration. By simultaneously comparing k-ratios for all spectrometers, one can also ascertain k-ratio consensus, essential for inter-laboratory comparisons. We also introduce improved dead time expressions and provide best practices on how to perform these instrument calibrations using this new "constant k-ratio" method. These improvements enable quantitative analysis of major and minor elements with high accuracy at high beam currents, simultaneously with trace elements with high sensitivity, for point analyses and X-ray mapping.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207