MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140148748 · doi:10.1139/w03-095

Biosensors for the detection of bacteria

2004· review· en· W2140148748 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosensorNanotechnologyMolecular beaconAptamerElectronic noseTransduction (biophysics)Biochemical engineeringComputer scienceBiologyMaterials scienceEngineeringBiophysicsMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review will consider the role of biosensors towards the detection of infectious bacteria, although non-infectious ones will be considered where necessary. Recently, there has been a heightened interest in developing rapid and reliable methods of detection. This is especially true for detection of organisms involved in bioterrorism, food poisoning, and clinical problems such as antibiotic resistance. Biosensors can assist in achieving these goals, and sensors using several of the different types of transduction modes are discussed: electrochemical, high frequency (surface acoustic wave), and optical. The paper concludes with a discussion of three areas that may make a great impact in the next few years: integrated (lab-on-a-chip) systems, molecular beacons, and aptamers.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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