MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993426721 · doi:10.1088/0960-1317/14/8/008

Joule heating effects on peak broadening in capillary zone electrophoresis

2004· article· en· W1993426721 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangchun Xuan, Dongqing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoule heatingCapillary electrophoresisChemistryDiffusionElectro-osmosisElectrophoresisCapillary actionDispersion (optics)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ViscosityJoule–Thomson effectZeta potentialThermodynamicsFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMaterials scienceChromatographyOpticsPhysicsNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on Taylor–Aris dispersion theory, a general analytical formula was derived for the theoretical plate height in capillary zone electrophoresis with the consideration of Joule heating effects. During the electrophoresis, the Joule heating causes a temperature rise and temperature gradients in the buffer solution. The temperature variations can affect the molecular diffusion, electroosmotic flow and electrophoretic flow via the temperature-dependent diffusion coefficient, dynamic viscosity and electrical conductivity. All these factors contribute to the peak broadening and are considered simultaneously in the present general model. The general formula derived in this paper is employed to discuss quantitatively the peak broadening in the presence of Joule heating effects. This formula can be easily extended to capillary zone electrophoresis with higher zeta potentials, if an approximate solution to Poisson–Boltzmann equation is employed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations73
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207