MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086291949 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12240

Quantified Explosives Transfer on Surfaces for the Evaluation of Trace Detection Equipment

2013· article· en· W2086291949 on OpenAlexafffund
Maggie Tam, Pierre Pilon, Hafid Zaknoun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsBentley (Canada)
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsExplosive materialMaterials scienceSTRIPSTRACE (psycholinguistics)Thermal desorptionComposite materialChemistryDesorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trace explosive test surfaces are often required for the evaluation of trace detection equipment to determine the equipment performance. Test surfaces of C-4, Detasheet, Semtex-H, TNT, and HMTD were prepared by transferring trace amount of explosive deposited on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) transfer strips onto different surfaces (Kraft paper, hard plastic, woven fabric, and soft vinyl). The amount of explosive transferred was deduced from the amount of explosive remaining on the PTFE strips after transfer, as quantified by direct analysis using tandem mass spectrometry with thermal desorption. From the data set of over 2000 transfers, we experienced lower transfer efficiency for Semtex-H and Detasheet, and for soft vinyl and hard plastic. However, the rapid quantification mass spectrometric method allowed the transfer efficiency to be determined for all test surfaces used in an evaluation of trace explosive detectors, thereby permitting only the test surfaces with desired transfer to be accepted for the assessment.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207