Premium
“Standard Samples”: How “Standard” Are They?
Author(s) -
ABBEY SYDNEY
Publication year - 1977
Publication title -
geostandards newsletter
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1751-908X
pISSN - 0150-5505
DOI - 10.1111/j.1751-908x.1977.tb00856.x
Subject(s) - plea , argument (complex analysis) , interpretation (philosophy) , statistics , computer science , econometrics , management science , psychology , mathematics , law , political science , engineering , medicine , programming language
A review is presented regarding the problems in the assignment of values for individual components of reference samples of silicate rooks. Possible causes are examined for the disparity of data obtained from contributing laboratories and for the fact that there has been little improvement over the years. Differences between collaborative programmes on rocks and those on ores are emphasized, particularly regarding the imbalance resulting from the inability to maintain adequate control over operations involving so many varied components. A plea is made for more careful interpretation of published values, for more meaningful description of analytical methods used and for more uniform practices in programmes originating in various countries. An argument is presented in favor of tempering statistical treatment with subjective considerations, and several tentative tests are proposed for verifying the validity of derived values.