MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153152601 · doi:10.1039/b501218j

Rapid determination of plutonium in urine using flow injection on-line preconcentration and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

2005· article· en· W2153152601 on OpenAlexafffund
Vladimir N. Epov, Karima Benkhedda, R. J. Cornett, R. Douglas Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaTrent University
FundersHealth CanadaTrent University
KeywordsInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryDetection limitChemistryChromatographyReproducibilityUrineMass spectrometryMatrix (chemical analysis)Inductively coupled plasmaAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Plasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapid technique for the determination of Pu in urine samples using flow injection (FI) on-line preconcentration, desolvation nebulization using a highly sensitive APEX device and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry with a dynamic reaction cell (ICP-DRC-MS) was developed. Using the DRC avoided the necessity to separate Pu from U, and thus made the technique more rapid. Effective preconcentration and matrix separation for urine samples was achieved using TRU resin as the ion exchanger. A detection limit for 242Pu of 1.9 pg L−1 was achieved for raw, undigested urine samples using a 10 ml sample volume. The reproducibility of the method was demonstrated by recovery measurements performed on urine that had been collected from several non-exposed volunteers and spiked with Pu. 205Tl and 175Lu were used as an internal standard and yield tracer, respectively. The method provides a rapid (∼11 min) means of measuring Pu in urine with no off-line sample pre-treatment, at levels below the regulatory requirements for drinking water.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations79
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical Atomic SpectrometrySame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207