MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083918718 · doi:10.1007/s13361-010-0017-4

Gas-Phase Fluorescence Excitation and Emission Spectroscopy of Three Xanthene Dyes (Rhodamine 575, Rhodamine 590 and Rhodamine 6G) in a Quadrupole Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer

2011· article· en· W2083918718 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew W. Forbes, Rebecca A. Jockusch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryRhodamine 6GQuadrupole ion trapAnalytical Chemistry (journal)XantheneIonPopulationEmission spectrumPhotochemistryIon trapSpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gas-phase fluorescence excitation, emission and photodissociation characteristics of three xanthene dyes (rhodamine 575, rhodamine 590, and rhodamine 6G) have been investigated in a quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer. Measured gas-phase excitation and dispersed emission spectra are compared with solution-phase spectra and computations. The excitation and emission maxima for all three protonated dyes lie at higher energy in the gas phase than in solution. The measured Stokes shifts are significantly smaller for the isolated gaseous ions than the solvated ions. Laser power-dependence measurements indicate that absorption of multiple photons is required for photodissociation. Redshifts and broadening of the dispersed fluorescence spectra at high excitation laser power provide evidence of gradual heating of the ion population, pointing to a mechanism of sequential multiple-photon activation through absorption/emission cycling. The relative brightness in the gas phase follows the order R575(1.00) < R590(1.15) < R6G(1.29). Fluorescence emission from several mass-selected product ions has been measured.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations85
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Mass SpectrometrySame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207