MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sampling of Highly Volatile Accelerants at the Fire Scene

2003· article· en· W1996902631 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTenaxChromatographySampling (signal processing)ChemistryEnvironmental scienceSolid-phase microextractionForestryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental chemistryGas chromatographyPhysicsGas chromatography–mass spectrometryMass spectrometryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTHighly volatile accelerants such as alcohols and low molecular weight organic solvents diffuse in the air rather than remain in the fire debris at a fire scene. Therefore, these components are not effectively recovered by sampling methods used to analyze the debris recovered from the fire scene. This study examined the effectiveness of air sampling at the fire scene using a portable air pump to collect highly volatile ignitable liquids used as accelerants. This was done by comparing the air sampling method with dynamic headspace sampling and solid phase microextraction (SPME) methods, which are widely used for isolation and sampling of fire debris. Air sampling was performed by adsorption of accelerants on a stainless tube filled with Tenax TA and Carbopack B. The results showed that highly volatile components were more efficiently collected through air sampling when compared with either dynamic headspace or SPME.RÉSUMÉLes liquides très volatils tels que les alcools et les solvants organiques possédant des poids moléculaires peux élevés diffusent dans l'air et par conséquence ne sont pas toujours présents dans les débris d'incendies à la scène. Ces composantes ne sont donc pas récupérées très facilement par les méthodes d'échantillonnage utilisées pour faire l'analyse des débris provenant des scènes d'incendies. Cette étude examine l'efficacité de prendre des échantillons d'air à la scène d'incendie en utilisant une pompe portative afin de récupérer les liquides volatils pouvant être utilisés comme accélérants. Ceci a été fait en comparant la technique d'échantillonnage d'air avec la technique d'absorption dynamique et la méthode de micro-extraction avec phase solide (MEPS) qui sont couramment utilisées pour l'isolation et l'analyse des débris d'incendies. Les échantillons d'air ont été récupérés en absorbant les accélérants dans un tube en acier contenant du TENAX TA et du Carbowax B. Les résultats démontrent que les composantes très volatiles sont récupérées plus efficacement par la technique d'échantillonnage d'air que par les techniques d'absorption dynamique et la MEPS.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.331
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