MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028956773 · doi:10.1080/10406630290026966

Analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Using Microbore Columns

2002· article· en· W2028956773 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePolycyclic aromatic compounds · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyResolution (logic)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Capillary actionGas chromatographyChromatographic separationHigh-performance liquid chromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gas chromatographic analysis of polycyclic aromatic compounds can be completed faster and with increased chromatographic resolution using microbore columns (Fast GC). Microbore columns contain two to three times the number of theoretical plates per meter when compared to 0.25 mm internal diameter (i.d.) capillary columns. The increased chromatographic resolving power of microbore columns enables separations to be carried out with much shorter columns giving rise to faster analysis times. Analysis times of priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on 20 m (5% phenyl, 0.1 mm i.d., 0.1 w m film thickness) and 10 m (5% phenyl, 0.1 mm i.d., 0.1 w m film thickness) columns are reduced by about 45% and 60% respectively in comparison with 30 m columns, and data quality (precision and accuracy) is not affected. All areas/parameters of the chromatographic system must be adjusted and optimized to ensure proper chromatographic performance. Smaller injection volumes (0.2-0.5 w L) and injection liners (1-2 mm i.d.) are required to obtain optimum (and reproducible) chromatography on 0.1 mm i.d. columns.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.226 · 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