MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ballpoint Pen Inks: The Quantitative Analysis of Ink Solvents on Paper by Solid‐Phase Microextraction

2006· article· en· W1974316640 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

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsShared Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid-phase microextractionInkwellChromatographyMass spectrometryAnalyteGas chromatography–mass spectrometryGas chromatographyMaterials scienceAdsorptionFiberAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We wish to describe further developments to a method previously reported on the detection of 2-phenoxyethanol in ink. The solid-phase microextraction (SPME) sampling technique, together with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), has been used to quantify solvents in writing ink. In conventional approaches, the analysis of ink on documents requires some degree of destructive sampling. The methods commonly used remove ink samples from paper using a scalpel or a paper punch. To avoid document destruction, a sampling cell was constructed that allows solvents to be adsorbed directly onto the SPME fiber from the headspace above the document surface. Analytes (ink volatiles) are then desorbed from the SPME fiber on a gas chromatograph equipped with a mass selective detector (GC-MSD). With this method, it was possible to detect the presence of ink solvents on documents for a period lasting up to c. 2 years.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.280 · 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