The Canadian Mineralogist Vol. 38, pp. 1-10 (2000) COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SULFIDES FOR GOLD USING SXRF AND SIMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulfides may be analyzed for gold using Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) and Synchrotron X-Ray Fluorescence (SXRF); we have compared the two methods with respect to instrumental requirements, time, analysis volume, and detection limits. A limitation in this comparison is the inhomogeneous distribution of Au within arsenopyrite, as demonstrated using SIMS imaging for samples from the São Bento deposit, Brazil. Analysis of the same grains of arsenopyrite produces good agreement between the two techniques; discrepancies are attributable to slight shifts in analysis locations between the two techniques or the different volumes being analyzed. Whereas SIMS has imaging capability and sub-ppm detection limits, quantitation is difficult. SXRF spectra are relatively simple, and quantitative analysis is not as matrix-dependent as with SIMS. The detection level for Au in arsenopyrite by SXRF is limited by the background from AsKa to about 50 ppm, but will be reduced to about 15 ppm using more intense synchrotron sources.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".