MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996991682 · doi:10.1080/02652030010009156

A comparison of techniques for preparing fish fillet for ICP-AES multielemental analysis and the microwave digestion of whole fish

2001· article· en· W1996991682 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNational Institute of Environmental Research
KeywordsTetramethylammonium hydroxideNitric acidAshingMicrowave digestionChemistryMicrowave ovenFillet (mechanics)ChromatographyCatfishInductively coupled plasmaMicrowaveFish <Actinopterygii>Detection limitMaterials scienceInorganic chemistryFisheryPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four catfish fillet homogenate treatments before multielemental metal analysis by simultaneous inductively coupled plasma/atomic emission spectroscopy were compared in triplicate. These treatments were: nitric acid wet-ashing by Parr bomb digestion; nitric acid wet-ashing by microwave digestion; tetramethylammonium hydroxide/nitric acid wet digestion; and dry-ashing. The tetramethylammonium hydroxide/nitric acid method was imprecise (coefficients of variation > 20%). The dry-ashing method was fast and sensitive but had low recoveries of 50% for spiked Pb and Al and was not as precise as the Parr bomb or microwave treatments. The Parr bomb method was the most precise method but was less sensitive than the microwave method which had nearly the same precision. The microwave method was then adapted to homogenates of small whole fish < or = 3 cm in length. The whole fish homogenate required more vigorous digestion conditions, and addition of more acid after the evaporative step because of the presence of less oxidizable and acid-soluble components than fillet. The whole fish homogenate was also more heterogeneous than catfish fillet. A quality assurance protocol to demonstrate homogenate uniformity is essential. The use of a non-specialized microwave oven system allowed precise results for fillet and whole fish homogenates.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.291 · 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