Copper isotope delta measurements in high purity materials: CCQM-P213 pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main text Accurate and precise isotope ratio measurements of heavy elements are playing an increasingly important role in modern analytical sciences and have numerous applications. Today, isotope ratio measurements are typically performed with two principal techniques: thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) and multiple collector-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS). To obtain accurate results by mass spectrometry, isotopic certified reference materials (iCRMs) are needed for mass bias correction and for the validation of the method used for analysis. Thus, it is of paramount importance to achieve measurement comparability of all data reported, and to assess measurement capability of each CRM producer/National Metrology Institute (NMI). Therefore, the international comparison (CCQM-P213) was performed to assess the analytical capabilities of NMIs for the accurate determination of copper isotope ratio delta values in high purity materials. The study was proposed by the coordinating laboratories National Research Council Canada (NRC), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM) and Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) as an activity of the Isotope Ratio Working Group (IRWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance - Metrology in Chemistry and Biology (CCQM). Participants included six NMIs and one designated institute (DI) from the six countries. Although no measurement method was prescribed by the coordinating laboratories, MC-ICP-MS with either standard-sample bracketing (SSB) or combined SSB with internal normalization (C-SSBIN) models for mass bias correction were recommended. Results obtained from the six NMIs and one DI were in good agreement. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".