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

Analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Using Microbore Columns

2002· article· en· W2028956773 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne R. Boden, Gerald E. Ladwig, Eric J. Reiner

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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

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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolycyclic aromatic compoundsSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207