Mass selective axial ion ejection from linear quadrupoles with added octopole fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass selective axial ejection of ions from linear quadrupoles with added octopole fields is described. Quadrupoles with 2.0% and 2.6% added octopole fields have been tested and compared with a conventional quadrupole. The effects of trapping ions at different q values, excitation voltage, scan direction, balanced and unbalanced rf voltages on the rods, and dc applied between the rods have been investigated. The highest scan speeds and best resolution are obtained with resonant excitation and ejection at high q (q = 0.8). With axial ejection, the quadrupole with a 2.0% added octopole field provides mass resolution and ejection efficiencies similar to a conventional rod set. Quadrupole, dipole, and simultaneous dipole-dipole excitation between the x and y rod pairs were compared, and no advantage was found with quadrupole or dipole-dipole excitation. The effects of scan speed were investigated and a resolution at half height of about 1600 is possible at scans speed up to 5000 Th/s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".