MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055753827 · doi:10.1108/sr-11-2012-724

Review of recent trends in gas sensing technologies and their miniaturization potential

2014· article· en· W2055753827 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

VenueSensor Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGas Sensing Nanomaterials and Sensors
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiniaturizationComputer scienceData scienceEmerging technologiesRisk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringNanotechnologyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringBusinessMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – This paper aims to give an overview about the state of the art and novel technologies used in gas sensing. It also discusses the miniaturization potential of some of these technologies in a comparative way. Design/methodology/approach – In this article, the authors state the most of the methods used in gas sensing discuss their advantages and disadvantages and at last the authors discuss the ability of their miniaturization comparing between them in terms of their sensing parameters like sensitivity, selectivity and cost. Findings – In this article, the authors will try to cover most of the important methods used in gas sensing and their recent developments. The authors will also discuss their miniaturization potential trying to find the best candidate among the different types for the aim of miniaturization. Originality/value – In this article, the authors will review most of the methods used in gas sensing and discuss their miniaturization potential delimiting the research to a certain type of technology or application.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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