MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016661589 · doi:10.1002/jssc.200800603

Sampling free and particle‐bound chemicals using solid‐phase microextraction and needle trap device simultaneously

2009· article· en· W2016661589 on OpenAlexaff
Vadoud Niri, In‐Yong Eom, Farhad Riazi Kermani, Janusz Pawliszyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Separation Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid-phase microextractionChromatographyAnalyteChemistrySampling (signal processing)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Particle (ecology)FiberMass spectrometryGas chromatography–mass spectrometryOrganic chemistryDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of sampling the free and particle-bound concentrations of organic compounds was studied using two different sampling techniques at the same time: needle trap device (NTD) and solid-phase microextraction (SPME). In this study, a mosquito coil was used to produce gaseous (free) and particle-bound compounds. Allethrin, the active ingredient in mosquito coils, was chosen as the target analyte. Under the same sampling conditions, the amount of allethrin extracted from the mosquito-coil smoke was higher for the NTD compared to the SPME fiber, while the extracted amounts were almost the same for both devices when sampling gaseous samples of allethrin. These results can be explained by the fact that the SPME fiber can only extract free molecules (based on diffusion), whereas the NTD, an exhaustive sampling device, collects both free and particle-bound allethrin. Breakthrough for NTD and carryover for both NTD and SPME were negligible under the given sampling and desorption conditions.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations61
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Separation ScienceSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207