Effect of wall velocities on the determination of optimal separation times in electrical field flow fractionation (EFFF)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electrical field flow fractionation (EFFF) has two perpendicular driving forces that help to produce an optimal separation of solute in a mixture [Giddings, Science 1993; 260:1456–1465]. For Couette flow based devices, the ratio of the velocity of the capillary walls offers an extra parameter that can be exploited to enhance the efficiency of EFFF applications. The analysis of the effects of this parameter on optimal times of separation is the subject matter of this contribution. The use of this additional parameter increases flexibility in the design of new devices for the improvement of the separation of solutes, such as proteins, DNA, and pharmaceuticals, as it will be illustrated with the results of this analysis (Jaroszeski et al., 2000 ; Trinh et al., 1999 ). The analysis has been illustrated by selecting parameter values that represent a number of potential useful applications. A set of five parameters (i.e., z , the valence; µ , electrophoretic mobility; Pe, Peclet number; Ω, the orthogonal applied electrical field; and R , the ratio of channel wall velocities) has been combined to obtain the best operating conditions for optimal separation of solutes. Results indicate that R , the ratio of the channel wall velocities, is actually the most important driving parameter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it