MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W59882262 · doi:10.1017/s0033822200053091

Some Comments on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry

2000· article· en· W59882262 on OpenAlexafffund
H. E. Gove

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiocarbon · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAccelerator mass spectrometryRadiocarbon datingMass spectrometrySubject (documents)ChemistryComputer scienceHistoryArchaeologyLibrary scienceChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses some aspects of the development of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), the international conferences that have been held, and the books that have been written on the subject. It also mentions some details of the technique and its strengths. Some of the interesting measurements that have been made recently are covered, and finally, it presents some thoughts on future developments.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0110.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.026

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiocarbonSame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207