MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145583357 · doi:10.1093/chromsci/44.5.253

Low Thermal Mass Gas Chromatography: Principles and Applications

2006· article· en· W2145583357 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
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryGas chromatographyProcess engineeringThroughputResistive touchscreenThermalChromatographyComputer scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In gas chromatography (GC), temperature programming is often considered to be the second most important parameter to control, the first being column selectivity. A radically new GC technology to achieve ultrafast temperature programming with an unprecedented cool down time and low power consumption has recently become available. This technology is referred to as low thermal mass GC (LTMGC). Though the technology has its roots in resistive heating, which forms the basis of principle and design concept, the approach taken to achieve ultrafast heating and cool down time by LTMGC represents a significant break-through in GC. Despite some rectifiable shortcomings, LTMGC has proven to be an ideal methodology to deliver near/real time GC data, high precision, and high throughput applications. It is a new approach for modern high-speed GC. This paper documents the fundamental design principles behind LTMGC, performance data, and examples of applications investigated.

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 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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