MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sampling of Highly Volatile Accelerants at the Fire Scene

2003· article· en· W1996902631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Man Jae Kwon, SUNGCHUL HONG, Heung‐Jin Choi

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

Highly 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.052
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

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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicForensic Fingerprint Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207