MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Separation Science: Principles and Applications for the Analysis of Bionanoparticles by Asymmetrical Flow Field-Flow Fractionation (AF4)

2013· article· en· W127357150 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicField-Flow Fractionation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractionationField flow fractionationNanometreFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceNanotechnologyRange (aeronautics)Component (thermodynamics)ChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Process engineeringChemistryBiological systemMechanicsEngineeringPhysicsComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field-flow fractionation is an analytical technique that allows the separation of particles over a size range, from a few nanometers to several microns in diameter. The separation takes place under mild conditions and is suited for the analysis of neutral or charged particles. A single measurement yields the size and concentration of each component of a mixture. However, developing a suitable fractionation method can be tedious and time-consuming. In this chapter, we present asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) conditions that have proven their reliability for the analysis of quantum dots and other nanoparticles in the 5-50 nm size range. Common pitfalls are emphasized together with strategies to overcome them.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.370 · 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