MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014772223 · doi:10.1039/b515274g

Fast supercritical fluid chromatography hydrocarbon group-type separations of diesel fuels using packed and monolithic columns

2006· article· en· W2014772223 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard E. Paproski, Jean Cooley, Charles A. Lucy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)University of AlbertaAlberta Glycomics Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMerck KGaA
KeywordsChromatographyMonolithic HPLC columnChemistryElutionPacked bedSupercritical fluid chromatographyDiesel fuelHydrocarbonSupercritical fluidAnalytical Chemistry (journal)High-performance liquid chromatographyVolumetric flow rateOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two approaches for decreasing diesel hydrocarbon group-type separation times by normal phase supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) are compared. Short (10-15 cm) columns with small 3 microm diameter packing are compared with monolithic Chromolith bare silica columns under high carbon dioxide flow rates approaching 5 ml min(-1). Elution times are reduced up to 13-fold on a 10 cm Chromolith column and 7-fold on the short packed columns compared with conventional length columns run at typical flow rates. Short packed columns, with their higher surface area and retention characteristics, offer higher resolutions compared with Chromolith columns. Diesel samples are separated into saturates, mono-, di-, tri-, and polyaromatics in as little as 2 min on a 10 cm packed silica column. Diesel group-type results on a 15 cm titania-silica coupled column compare favorably with results from longer columns.

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207