MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047649118 · doi:10.1021/ac0490806

Solid-Phase Microextraction Field Sampler

2004· article· en· W2047649118 on OpenAlexaff
Yong Chen, Janusz Pawliszyn

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid-phase microextractionSorbentFiberChemistrySampling (signal processing)Seal (emblem)ChromatographySample preparationSample (material)Process engineeringAdsorptionGas chromatography–mass spectrometryComputer scienceMass spectrometryTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To facilitate the use of solid-phase microextraction (SPME) for field sampling, a new field sampler was designed and tested. The sampler was versatile and user-friendly. The SPME fiber can be positioned precisely inside the needle for time-weighted average sampling or exposed completely outside the needle for grab sampling. The needle is protected within a shield at all times, hereby eliminating the risk of operator injury and fiber damage. A replaceable Teflon cap is used to seal the needle to preserve sample integrity. Factors that affect the preservation of sample integrity (sorbent efficiency, temperature, sealing materials) were studied. The use of a highly efficient sorbent for the fiber is recommended as the first choice for the preservation of sample integrity. Teflon was a good material for sealing the fiber needle, had little memory effect, and could be used repeatedly. To address adsorption of high boiling point compounds on fiber needles, several kinds of deactivated needles were evaluated. RSC-2 fiber needles were the more effective. A preliminary field sampling investigation demonstrated the validity of the new SPME device for field applications.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations53
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207