MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094176069 · doi:10.14356/kona.2011006

Use of Virtual Impactor (VI) Technology in Biological Aerosol Detection

2011· article· en· W2094176069 on OpenAlex
Jim Ho

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

VenueKONA Powder and Particle Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolUSableNanotechnologySample (material)ImplementationComputer scienceBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringChemistryMeteorologyPhysicsChromatographyMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting biological threat aerosol is difficult in that a small cloud lasting only a few seconds at a point location may contain sufficient material to infect large numbers of exposed individuals. Clinical analytical methods require relative large amounts of the sample in liquid form to facilitate positive measurements. Biological agents may be fragile because of their lipid membranes that can be susceptible to harsh sample collection treatment. Damaged organisms may render subsequent analyses to be invalid. Virtual impaction (VI) sample collectors have been theorized to provide usable concentration rates yet are sufficiently gentle with the aerosol particles to preserve cellular viability. This review will discuss different implementations of VI technology and examine their merits. Outstanding issues will be outlined to aid future experimentation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.189 · 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