MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Internal Standards for the Analysis of Ignitable Liquids in Fire Debris

2009· article· en· W2163838530 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda K. Locke, Gene J. Basara, P. Mark L. Sandercock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolueneChlorobenzenePyrolysisNaphthaleneCarbon disulfideExtraction (chemistry)TetrachloroethyleneChemistryStyreneEnvironmental chemistryGas chromatographyChromatographyTrichloroethyleneOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An evaluation of eight compounds for use as an internal standard in fire debris analysis was conducted. Tests were conducted on tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, n-octylbenzene, 3-phenyltolune, and deuterated compounds toluene-d8, styrene-d8, naphthalene-d8, and diphenyl-d10 to measure the extraction efficiency of each compound in the presence of an interfering volatile compound (carbon disulfide). Other tests were conducted to evaluate whether or not the presence of an ignitable liquid or pyrolysis/combustion products from fire debris would interfere with the identification of these compounds when used as an internal standard. The results showed that while any of the eight compounds could be used as an internal standard in fire debris analysis, the more volatile compounds (toluene-d8, tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, and styrene-d8) showed better extraction efficiencies at room temperature than when heated to 60 degrees C. Each of the less volatile compounds (naphthalene-d8, diphenyl-d10, n-octylbenzene, and 3-phenyltolune) performed well during extraction at 60 degrees C, while naphthalene-d8 showed better extraction efficiency in the presence of competing volatiles when extracted at room temperature.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Fingerprint Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207