MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of the Dräger Alcotest 7110 MKIII Dual C Evidential Breath Alcohol Analyzer

2001· article· en· W1968575442 on OpenAlexaffvenue
B.T. Hodgson, Michelle Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsShared Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetaldehydeVapoursChemistryAlcoholMethanolDiethyl etherEthyl acetateAqueous solutionChromatographyTolueneEthanolOrganic chemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alcotest 7110 MKIII Dual C breath alcohol analyzer (MKIII Dual C) was evaluated according to the CSFS Alcohol Test Committee (ATC) standards (1998) for approved instruments. The MKIII Dual C uses two detectors: infrared (IR) at 9.5 μm and an electrochemical sensor (EC). Vapours from aqueous acetone solutions of 5, 10 and 50 milligrams in 100 millilitres of solution did not produce any readings other than zero on the instrument. Vapours from aqueous solutions of acetaldehyde, methanol, isopropanol, toluene, ethyl acetate and diethyl ether were blown into the MKIII Dual C to determine potential interference with the operation of the instrument. The instrument registered an “Interference” result with acetaldehyde, methanol, isopropanol, ethyl acetate and diethyl ether while toluene registered as a zero reading. The instrument's performance exceeded the ATC criteria for precision and accuracy when tested with vapours from aqueous alcohol solutions designed to simulate blood alcohol concentrations in the range of 50 to 350 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Human subject testing (n = 11) showed a correlation with two Approved Instruments (BAC Datamaster C and Intoxilyzer®5000C) that exceeded the ATC criteria.

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 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)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207