MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278414398 · doi:10.1002/masy.201500109

Designing Polymeric Sensing Materials for Analyte Detection and Related Mechanisms

2016· article· en· W2278414398 on OpenAlex
Katherine M. E. Stewart, Alexander Penlidis

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Symposia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of ExcellenceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsAnalyteMaterials sciencePolymerNanotechnologyOxidePolyanilineChemistryChromatographyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A systematic approach is used to design and tailor sensing materials for targeted analytes and specific applications. An example is used to demonstrate how potential sensing materials can be designed based on the chemical nature of both the target analyte and the sensing material, and thus predominant sensing mechanisms by which the two interact. The example analyte is a small, polar molecule able to hydrogen bond; therefore, a sensing material that targets the analyte should have polymer chains that pack tightly together, be polar, and be able to hydrogen bond. Any metal oxide dopants should be able to coordinate to both the target analyte and the polymer. Polyaniline and poly ( o ‐anisidine), along with nickel oxide and zinc oxide, are chosen as potential sensing materials and subsequently evaluated based on their ability to sorb the analyte in question.

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)0.000
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 score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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