MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562060445 · doi:10.1002/cem.2535

Process analytical chemistry and chemometrics, Bruce Kowalski's legacy at The Dow Chemical Company

2013· article· en· W1562060445 on OpenAlexaff
Randy J. Pell, Mary Beth Seasholtz, Kenneth R. Beebe, Mel Koch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemometrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemometricsChemistryProcess analytical technologyIndustrial chemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Graduate studentsProcess (computing)EngineeringComputer scienceChemical engineeringBiochemical engineeringSociologyOrganic chemistryChromatographyBioprocess

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the passing of Bruce R. Kowalski in 2012, a true visionary for chemometrics and process analytical chemistry has been lost. Bruce made significant contributions in the area of chemometrics and process analytical chemistry when he was a professor of chemistry at the University of Washington. He developed new and innovative chemometrics technology and founded the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry. He inspired many students and visiting scholars and had a significant impact on the practice of industrial analytical chemistry. One of the companies that benefitted greatly from Bruce's work was The Dow Chemical Company. This publication attempts to summarize Bruce's legacy at Dow through a discussion of Dow's involvement in the beginnings of the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry and the ongoing research and applications of chemometrics by his former graduate students at The Dow Chemical Company. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ChemometricsSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207