MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087671664 · doi:10.1139/s05-045

Pyrolysis-GC/MS analysis of leachates for differentiating the parent matter of DOM

2006· article· en· W2087671664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Seelen, D. White, Kenji Yoshikawa, Vincent Autier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
KeywordsLeachateEnvironmental scienceWatershedVegetation (pathology)Fingerprint (computing)Environmental chemistryGas chromatography–mass spectrometryLand coverPrincipal component analysisOrganic matterMass spectrometryChemistryEcologyLand useChromatographyMathematicsComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to better understand the link between dissolved organic matter (DOM) in soil leachates and the different vegetation cover types in a boreal forest. Soil cores were collected from the Caribou Poker Creeks Research Watershed (CPCRW) and subjected to a laboratory leaching procedure. The leachates were subjected to a number of analytical tests, including pyrolysis-gas chromotagraphy/mass spectrometry (py-GC/MS). Py-GC/MS is a molecular fingerprinting technique that proved capable of characterizing the DOM obtained from the various soil leachates. The molecular fingerprint and vegetation types were compared with Student's t test and principal component analysis. Results from these tests support a conclusion that the characteristics of cover vegetation can be detected in leachates. Coniferous and deciduous trees could be statistically differentiated based on their molecular fingerprints with statistical significance (p < 0.005). By using, the combination of py-GC/MS and rigorous multivariate statistical analysis one can better understand the source of DOM based on characteristics it retains. Key words: py-GC/MS, DOM, molecular fingerprint, leachate.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207