MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313039559 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.12-395

Determination and Confirmation of Parent and Total Ractopamine in Bovine, Swine, and Turkey Tissues by Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Final Action 2011.23

2013· article· en· W2313039559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W Dennis Ulrey, Thomas J Burnett, Sharon L Brunelle, Kimberly R Lombardi, Mark R Coleman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Food and Drug Administration
KeywordsRactopamineChromatographyChemistryLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryTandem mass spectrometryMass spectrometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multilaboratory study of AOAC Official Method 2011.23 was performed to satisfy requirements for Final Action status through the AOAC expert review panel process. The study included nine collaborating laboratories from the United States, Canada, Brazil, and The Netherlands. Five incurred residue materials (bovine muscle, bovine liver, swine muscle, swine liver, and turkey muscle) were analyzed by each laboratory as blind duplicates for parent and total ractopamine content. After removal of invalid data, the parent and total ractopamine methods demonstrated acceptable reproducibility (RSDR 11.4-42.4%, HorRatR 0.34-2.01) based on AOAC criteria. The method was awarded Final Action status by the Official Methods Board on October 4, 2012.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207