Evaluation of Internal Standards for the Analysis of Ignitable Liquids in Fire Debris
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it