MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987972152 · doi:10.1002/rcm.1187

Linear quadrupoles with added octopole fields

2003· article· en· W1987972152 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

VenueRapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadrupoleChemistryRodQuadrupole magnetField (mathematics)Atomic physicsField strengthElectrodeIonMagnetic fieldNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two methods of adding relatively small octopole fields to the main quadrupole field of quadrupoles and linear ion traps with cylindrical rods are investigated. The first, 'stretching' the quadrupole by moving two rods out from the axis, produces a combination of higher order fields with similar magnitudes in which the octopole field is not necessarily the greatest. The quadrupole field strength is changed significantly and a large potential appears on the axis. The second method uses rod pairs of different diameters. It adds octopole components of up to several percent while all other higher order fields remain small. An axis potential is also added, but it is only a few percent of the radio-frequency (RF) voltage and approximately equal to the strength of the octopole field. The axis potential can be removed by moving the larger rod pair out from the axis or applying unbalanced RF to the electrodes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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