MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524656424 · doi:10.1039/9781839168765

Essential Mathematics for NMR and MRI Spectroscopists

2016· book· en· W2524656424 on OpenAlexaff
Keith C. Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationGraduate studentsNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyField (mathematics)Competence (human resources)Point (geometry)Calculus (dental)MathematicsPsychologyNuclear magnetic resonancePedagogyGeometryPhysicsPure mathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning with a review of the important areas of mathematics, this book then covers many of the underlying theoretical and practical aspects of NMR and MRI spectroscopy from a maths point of view. Competence in algebra and introductory calculus is needed but all other maths concepts are covered. It will bridge a gap between high level and introductory titles used in NMR or MRI spectroscopy. Uniquely, it takes a very careful and pedagogical approach to the mathematics behind NMR and MRI. It leaves out very few steps, which distinguishes it from other books in the field. The author is an NMR laboratory manager and is sympathetic to the frustrations of trying to understand where some of the fundamental equations come from hence his desire to either explicitly derive all equations for the reader or direct them to derivations. This is an essential text aimed at graduate students who are beginning their careers in NMR or MRI spectroscopy and laboratory managers if they need an understanding of the theoretical foundations of the technique.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.036

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207