MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105084411 · doi:10.1351/pac-rec-06-04-06

Definitions of terms relating to mass spectrometry (IUPAC Recommendations 2013)

2013· article· en· W2105084411 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePure and Applied Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical nomenclatureChemistryTerminologyMass spectrometryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyOrganic chemistryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document contains recommendations for terminology in mass spectrometry. Development of standard terms dates back to 1974 when the IUPAC Commission on Analytical Nomenclature issued recommendations on mass spectrometry terms and definitions. In 1978, the IUPAC Commission on Molecular Structure and Spectroscopy updated and extended the recommendations and made further recommendations regarding symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations. The IUPAC Physical Chemistry Division Commission on Molecular Structure and Spectroscopy’s Subcommittee on Mass Spectroscopy revised the recommended terms in 1991 and appended terms relating to vacuum technology. Some additional terms related to tandem mass spectrometry were added in 1993 and accelerator mass spectrometry in 1994. Owing to the rapid expansion of the field in the intervening years, particularly in mass spectrometry of biomolecules, a further revision of the recommendations has become necessary. This document contains a comprehensive revision of mass spectrometry terminology that represents the current consensus of the mass spectrometry community.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

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)0.0140.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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