The INTAV intercomparison of electron-beam microanalysis of glass by tephrochronology laboratories, results and recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The INternational focus group on Tephrochronology And Volcanism (INTAV) of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) has conducted an intercomparison of tephrochronology laboratories with electron-beam microanalytical data on volcanic glasses submitted from 27 instruments at 24 institutions in 9 countries. This assessment includes most active tephrochronology laboratories and represents the largest intercomparison exercise yet conducted by the tephrochronology community. The intercomparison was motivated by the desire to assess the quality of data currently being produced and to stimulate improvements in analytical protocols and data reporting that will increase the efficacy of tephra fingerprinting and correlation. Participating laboratories were each supplied with a mount containing three samples for analysis: (1) rhyolitic Lipari obsidian ID3506, (2) phonolitic Sheep Track tephra from Mt. Edziza, British Columbia, Canada, and (3) basaltic Laki 1783 A.D. tephra. A fourth sample, rhyolitic Old Crow tephra, was also distributed. Most laboratories submitted extensive details of their analytical procedures in addition to their analytical results. Most used some combination of defocused or rastered beam and modest beam current to reduce alkali element migration. Approximately two-thirds reported that they routinely analyze one or more secondary standards to evaluate data quality and instrument performance. Despite substantial variety in procedures and calibration standards, most mean concentrations compare favorably between laboratories and with other data. Typically, four or fewer data contributions had means for a given element on a given sample that differed by more than ±2 standard deviations from the overall means. Obtaining accurate Na2O concentrations for the phonolitic tephra proved to be a challenge for many laboratories. Only one-half of the data sets had means within ±1 standard deviation of the ∼8.2 wt% Na2O value obtained by other methods. One mean is higher and 14 are lower. Three of the data set means fall below 7 wt% Na2O. Most submissions had relative precision better than 1–5% for the major elements. For low-abundance elements, the precision varied substantially with relative standard deviations as small as 10% and as large as 110%. Because of the strong response to this project, the tephrochronology community now has a large comparative data set derived from common reference materials that will facilitate improvements in accuracy and precision and which can enable improved use of published data produced by the participating laboratories. Finally, recommendations are provided for improving accuracy, precision, and reporting of electron-beam microanalytical data from glasses.
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 | 0.209 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".