MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Limits of detection of polydimethylsiloxane in29Si NMR spectroscopy

2000· review· en· W2081254130 on OpenAlexaff
Darlene J. Semchyschyn, Peter M. Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetection limitAnalytical Chemistry (journal)SpinsPolydimethylsiloxaneNuclear magnetic resonanceSpectroscopyChemistryNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyMagic angle spinningTransverse relaxation-optimized spectroscopyMaterials sciencePhysicsChromatographyFluorine-19 NMRCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limits of detection for neat poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), as detected via (29)Si NMR spectroscopy, were determined by the IUPAC, graphical, and propagation of errors methods from calibration curves obtained using a 7.05 Tesla superconducting magnet equipped with a magic angle spinning (MAS) NMR probe. Under conditions permitting full relaxation of the nuclear spins (recycle time >150 sec), the limit of detection with 128 transients was 1.7, 2.2, and 3.7 mg PDMS (23, 30, and 50 micromoles elemental Si) for the IUPAC, graphical, and propagation of errors methods, respectively. A higher limit of detection results when additional sources of uncertainty are considered. From the strict dependence of the limit of detection on the inverse of the square root of the number of transients signal-averaged, it is possible to extrapolate to a limit of detection of 183 microg PDMS (2.47 micromoles elemental Si) for a 24-hr signal averaging period. This limit of detection is 3 orders of magnitude higher than silicon levels found in human blood.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207