MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041040950 · doi:10.1002/jssc.200700131

An advanced solventless column test for capillary GC columns

2007· article· en· W2041040950 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Luong, Ronda Gras, WALTER JENNINGS

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Separation Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapillary actionChromatographyChemistryElutionGas chromatographySolventIsothermal processBoiling pointBoilingAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manufacturing skills for capillary GC columns have improved to a point where the commonly used tests no longer distinguish between "adequate" and "excellent" columns. A more stringent test mixture, coupled with a more exacting procedure, was proposed for testing capillary columns in 2004. The solutes were less sterically hindered and less retained, permitting the test to be run isothermally at lower temperatures where sorptive forces are stronger. To avoid masking active sites by solvent flooding, the test used a higher boiling solvent that eluted last. This test mixture, used under the prescribed conditions, differentiated adequate from excellent columns, but removal of the late-eluting solvent prolonged run times to as long as 1 h. The new test uses the same probes proposed in 2004, but entirely eliminates the solvent. Injections utilize a plunger-in-needle microvolume syringe, and the "gas saver" feature of a contemporary gas chromatograph. The latter serves as a dynamic diluter to deliver nanogram quantities of undiluted solutes to the column. The test can be conducted isothermally at a lower temperature in less than 15 min for most of the columns. This paper summarizes the analytical approach used, and presents method performance data and test results obtained on contemporary capillary columns from leading manufacturers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Separation ScienceSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207