MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137375162 · doi:10.1093/chromsci/44.6.291

Analytical Microextraction: Current Status and Future Trends

2006· review· en· W2137375162 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

VenueJournal of Chromatographic Science · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid-phase microextractionChromatographySample preparationChemistryAnalyteVolume (thermodynamics)Robustness (evolution)Extraction (chemistry)Liquid phaseSolid phase extractionProcess engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Gas chromatography–mass spectrometryMass spectrometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analytical microextractions, defined as nonexhaustive sample preparation with a very small volume of extracting phase (microliter range or smaller) relative to the sample volume, represent an important development in the field of analytical chemistry. Analytes are extracted by a small volume of a solid or semi-solid polymeric material, as in solid-phase microextraction (SPME), or alternatively by a small volume of a liquid, as in liquid-phase microextraction (LPME). This paper gives an overview of the SPME and LPME techniques and discusses future trends. This includes a discussion of the different extraction formats available, commercial equipment, method transfer from traditional sample preparation methods to microextraction, and performance as well as robustness for the latter type of systems. In addition, the paper contains a unified approach to the understanding of extraction thermodynamics and kinetics applicable to both SPME and LPME.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.338 · 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