MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524118029 · doi:10.1111/gwmr.12183

Syringe‐Tip Filters May Contain the Artificial Sweetener Saccharin

2016· article· en· W2524118029 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John Spoelstra, James W. Roy, Susan Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueGroundwater Monitoring & Remediation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsSucraloseSaccharinArtificial SweetenerChemistryDistilled waterPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceChromatographyWaste managementFood scienceBiologyEngineeringSugar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The presence of artificial sweeteners in environmental samples is increasingly used to detect wastewater (and recently landfill leachate) in rivers, lakes and groundwater. Through routine laboratory quality assurance/quality control procedures, it was discovered that some syringe‐tip filters leach saccharin when used to process water samples. We subsequently tested several brands of filters to determine if they leached any of the four common artificial sweeteners analyzed in environmental samples, acesulfame, saccharin, cyclamate, and sucralose. Of the six types of filters tested, only one brand was a source of artificial sweeteners and the only artificial sweetener found was saccharin. The source of the saccharin in the filters is unknown but it is likely the result of some step in the manufacturing process. The saccharin was typically removed from these filters using a distilled water rinse of 13 mL or less. As a precaution, filters should be pre‐tested for the presence of saccharin and/or filters should be flushed with distilled water or sample prior to the collection of water samples for artificial sweetener analyses.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGroundwater Monitoring & RemediationSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207