MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072264927 · doi:10.1002/ppap.200600012

Comparison of Atmospheric‐Pressure Plasma versus Low‐Pressure RF Plasma for Surface Functionalization of PTFE for Biomedical Applications

2006· article· en· W2072264927 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

VenuePlasma Processes and Polymers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlasma Applications and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface modificationPlasmaAtmospheric-pressure plasmaAtmospheric pressureAmine gas treatingMaterials scienceChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summary: PTFE surface modifications have been realized using low‐pressure RFGD, DBD and APGD in different atmospheres. Compared to the RFGD NH 3 plasma, the DBDs operating in H 2 /N 2 lead to similar surface concentrations of amino groups and similar surface damage, but with a much higher specificity. Both APGDs in H 2 /N 2 and NH 3 /N 2 lead to lower concentrations of amino groups, but with similar specificity, and with lower surface damage than the RFGD treatment. A method is proposed to evaluate the efficiency of the different discharges for amine surface functionalization of PTFE, and it is concluded that the NH 3 /N 2 APGD discharge is the one that give the best results for an effective surface treatment. Experimental setups for the DBD and the APGD plasma systems. magnified image Experimental setups for the DBD and the APGD plasma systems.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · 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