MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050534313 · doi:10.1002/jms.3303

Practical approaches to the ESI‐MS analysis of catalytic reactions

2014· article· en· W2050534313 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mass Spectrometry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsChemistryCatalysisComputational chemistryCombinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) is a soft ionization technique commonly coupled with liquid or gas chromatography for the identification of compounds in a one-time view of a mixture (for example, the resulting mixture generated by a synthesis). Over the past decade, Scott McIndoe and his research group at the University of Victoria have developed various methodologies to enhance the ability of ESI-MS to continuously monitor catalytic reactions as they proceed. The power, sensitivity and large dynamic range of ESI-MS have allowed for the refinement of several homogenous catalytic mechanisms and could potentially be applied to a wide range of reactions (catalytic or otherwise) for the determination of their mechanistic pathways. In this special feature article, some of the key challenges encountered and the adaptations employed to counter them are briefly reviewed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.240 · 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