MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028601512 · doi:10.1021/ed077p1619

ELISA and GC-MS as Teaching Tools in the Undergraduate Environmental Analytical Chemistry Laboratory

2000· article· en· W2028601512 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth I. Wilson, Dan Mathers, Scott A. Mabury, G. Jörgensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimazineAtrazineSample preparationEnvironmental analysisAnalyteSample (material)ChemistryEnvironmental chemistryChromatographyPollutantPesticide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An undergraduate experiment for the analysis of potential water pollutants is described. Students are exposed to two complementary techniques, ELISA and GC-MS, for the analysis of a water sample containing atrazine, desethylatrazine, and simazine. Atrazine was chosen as the target analyte because of its wide usage in North America and its utility for students to predict environmental degradation products. The water sample is concentrated using solid-phase extraction for GC-MS, or diluted and analyzed using a competitive ELISA test kit for atrazine. The nature of the water sample is such that students generally find that ELISA gives an artificially high value for the concentration of atrazine. Students gain an appreciation for problems associated with measuring pollutants in the aqueous environment: sensitivity, accuracy, precision, and ease of analysis. This undergraduate laboratory provides an opportunity for students to learn several new analysis and sample preparation techniques and to critically evaluate these methods in terms of when they are most useful.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207