Comparative Studies on PAH in Pitch by Liquid Chromatography/Fluorescence and Other Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to evaluate the PAH toxicity potential of our Söderberg cell emissions, a first PAH HPLC/F1 method was developed in the early 1990′s. A quality control of PAH measurements, based on the B[a]P Eq. Index of homogeneous, stable reference materials, was implemented to follow the pitches used in the fabrication of anode pastes. This technique employed megabore columns (4.6-mm o.d.) with twin fluorescence detectors. In the mid-1990′s, this method was upgraded to minibore columns in order to increase the accuracy. Data for the same pitches was accumulated over a three-year period. This communication compares the results from the two HPLC/F1 approaches including the extraction procedures, the stability of the PAH extracts, the stability of the equipment, the temporal resolution, the wavelengths used, etc., which can affect the apparent PAH values. This new method has also been compared with the results from other laboratories using different protocols and techniques including the presence of instrument specific interferences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".