MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151968085 · doi:10.1093/chromsci/bmr052

Developments in Ultra-Fast Temperature Programming with Silicon Micromachined Gas Chromatography: Performance and Limitations

2012· article· en· W2151968085 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Luong, Hua Cai, Ronda Gras, J. Curvers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chromatographic Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproducibilityChemistrySiliconGas chromatographyRelative standard deviationRetention timeDetectorChromatographyThermal stabilityAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Atmospheric temperature rangeThermal conductivityRange (aeronautics)Process engineeringDetection limitComputer scienceMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various commercially available ultra-fast temperature programming approaches were integrated to silicon micromachined GC (micro-GC) for performance improvement assessment. The combined technique of micro-GC and ultra-fast temperature programming up to a rate of 6°C/second yielded an extended analysis range to undecane (nC(11)), improved signal detectability by at least a factor of three for the solutes studied with respectable one day reproducibility of less than 1% relative standard deviation in retention time (n = 20). Through careful control of various variables affecting retention time, performance improvements can be extended further. The various effects temperature programming has on the stability of thermal conductivity detector as well as criteria that need to be met for the successful implementation of ultra-fast temperature programming in micro-GC are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chromatographic ScienceSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207