MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999365897 · doi:10.1002/mas.20247

Electrospray: From ions in solution to ions in the gas phase, what we know now

2009· article· en· W1999365897 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMass Spectrometry Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryIonMass spectrometryElectrosprayMass spectrumAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Electrospray ionizationAmmonium acetateGas phaseChromatographyPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an advantage for users of electrospray and nanospray mass spectrometry to have an understanding of the processes involved in the conversion of the ions present in the solution to ions in the gas phase. The following processes are considered: Creation of charge droplets at the capillary tip; Electrical potentials required and possibility of gas discharges; Evolution of charged droplets, due to solvent evaporation and Coulomb explosions, to very small droplets that are the precursors of the gas phase ions; Production of gas phase ions from these droplets via the Ion Evaporation and Charge residue models; Analytical uses of ESIMS of small ions, qualitative and quantitative analysis; Effects of the ESI mechanism on the analysis of proteins and protein complexes; Determination of stability constants of protein complexes; Role of additives such as ammonium acetate on the observed mass spectra.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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