Influences of Smoking Machine Types on Determining Results of Routine Smoke Analyses Under Health Canada Intense Smoking Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to study the characteristics of linear and rotary smoking machines in the determining of total particulate matter(TPM), moisture content, nicotine, tar and CO yields of cigarettes under health Canada intense smoking regime(HCI), a comparative study involving 9 linear smoking machines and 8 rotary smoking machines smoking 10 cigarette samples were carried out. The results demonstrated that: 1) For TPM, moisture content and tar, the deliveries determined by linear smoking machines were higher by 2.4-7.6, 2.0-5.0 and 1.4-3.1 mg/cig. than did by rotary smoking machines, respectively. While for CO, the delivery determined by linear smoking machines was lower by 0.9-2.4 mg/cig. Paired t-test results indicated that there existed statistical significant differences between the deliveries of TPM, moisture content, tar and CO determined by linear and rotary smoking machines at the confidence level of 99%. 2) Nicotine deliveries determined by linear and rotary smoking machines were similar and there was no significant difference at the confidence level of 0.01. 3) Comparing with rotary smoking machines, linear smoking machines showed higher repeatability and reproducibility for TPM, water and tar, and higher reproducibility for nicotine determination; while showed lower reproducibility for CO determination. Paired t-test results indicated there existed statistical significant differences between the deliveries of TPM, water, tar and CO determined by linear and rotary smoking machines at the confidence level of 99%. 4) The repeatability for nicotine and CO determination by linear and rotary smoking machines had no significant differences at the confidence level of 0.01.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".