MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332080296 · doi:10.1093/jat/33.2.109

Assessment of Response of the Intoxilyzer(R) 8000C to Volatiles of Forensic Relevance In Vitro, Part I: Acetone, Isopropanol, and Methanol

2009· article· en· W2332080296 on OpenAlexaffabout
James H. Watterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Toxicology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetoneMethanolChemistrySolventEthanolAlcoholChromatographyAqueous solutionSerial dilutionDilutionOrganic chemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response of the Intoxilyzer 8000C (version approved for evidentiary breath alcohol testing in Canada) to volatile solvents in vitro is described. Acetone, isopropanol, and methanol were prepared as aqueous solutions or dilutions of standard alcohol solution (SAS; 1.21 mg ethanol/mL) to generate apparent blood ethanol concentrations (aBEC) of 50 or 80 mg/dL. Solvent concentrations examined were relevant to clinical or impaired driving scenarios. Replicates of 20 aBEC measurements were made for each mixture and the actuation of the "INTERFERANT DETECT" message (IDM) was noted. Measurements of aqueous acetone (0-40 mg acetone/dL), isopropanol (0-100 mg isopropanol/dL), and methanol (0-100 mg methanol/dL) yielded aBECs of 0, 0-43, and 0-55 mg/dL, respectively. The minimum concentration examined at which the IDM was actuated in 100% of replicates was 25, 30, and 100 mg/dL for acetone, isopropanol, and methanol, respectively. The maximum concentration examined at which the IDM was actuated in none of the replicates was 5, 10, and 50 mg/dL for acetone, isopropanol, and methanol, respectively. In examinations of acetone/isopropanol mixtures in diluted SAS where the IDM was not always actuated, the maximum BEC overestimation was 10 mg/dL. Overall, the potential for significant undetected BEC overestimation is low and may be further reduced through truncation of test results and subject observation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical ToxicologySame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207