Beyond Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: Recent Developments in All-Optical Measurements of Radioisotope Carbon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The environmental impact of non-renewable energy has come under scrutiny, prompting investments in carbon management strategies like renewable fuels. The presence of radiocarbon in biofuel blends can validate their composition for government regulators and quality control. However, such measurements are challenging and costly, requiring accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) or liquid scintillation counting (LSC), which necessitate extensive preparation, expensive equipment, and highly trained personnel. Significant advancements have been recently made in developing optical methodologies capable of detecting 14 C at part per quadrillion sensitivity, with a smaller footprint, simpler sample preparation, and reduced cost. This review critically examines the benefits and limitations of direct absorption, cavity ringdown spectroscopy, intracavity optogalvanic spectroscopy, and photoacoustic spectroscopy as optical radiocarbon detection systems that may replace accelerator mass spectrometry as the primary gold standard methodology available.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".