MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020820016 · doi:10.1021/ed500062w

Hands-On Electrospray Ionization-Mass Spectrometry for Upper-Level Undergraduate and Graduate Students

2014· article· en· W2020820016 on OpenAlexafffund
Naomi L. Stock, Raymond E. March

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersTrent University
KeywordsMass spectrometryElectrospray ionizationInstrumentation (computer programming)Triple quadrupole mass spectrometerGraduate studentsChemistryQuadrupole time of flightSelected reaction monitoringElectrosprayAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Quadrupole ion trapIon trapChromatographyTandem mass spectrometryComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) is a powerful technique for the detection, identification, and quantification of organic compounds. As mass spectrometers have become more user-friendly and affordable, many students—often with little experience in mass spectrometry—find themselves needing to incorporate mass spectrometry into their research. Herein, a hands-on laboratory experiment for upper-level undergraduate and graduate students to investigate ESI-MS is described. This experiment provides students with the opportunity to observe and use instrumentation discussed in class, to investigate various modes of operation, to compare triple-stage quadrupole (TSQ) with quadrupole linear ion trap (QLIT) instrumentation, and to decide upon the optimum approach for incorporation of mass spectrometry into their research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.031

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207