MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018911791 · doi:10.1002/apj.5500130112

Fractionation of Proteins Using Ultrafiltration: Developments and Challenges

2005· article· en· W2018911791 on OpenAlex
Yinhua Wan, Zhanfeng Cui, Raja Ghosh

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

VenueDevelopments in Chemical Engineering and Mineral Processing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein purification and stability
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsUltrafiltration (renal)FractionationSeparation methodThroughputHigh resolutionChemistrySelectivityResolution (logic)ChromatographyNanotechnologyBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringBiochemistryArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years ultrafiltration has attracted significant interest as a potential technology for fractionating proteins. Although traditionally thought to be suitable for size‐based separation with high‐throughput but relatively low‐resolution, recent research has demonstrated that it is possible to significantly increase the selectivity in protein fractionation using ultrafiltration while still maintaining its inherent high‐throughput. This paper reviews recent developments in the area of protein fractionation using ultrafiltration, with focus on strategies employed to improve selectivity of separation. Several new techniques, technological developments, and their applications for selective ultrafiltration of proteins are also briefly introduced.

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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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