MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526819518 · doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0705

Extraction for analytical scale sample preparation (IUPAC Technical Report)

2016· article· en· W2526819518 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePure and Applied Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistrySample preparationExtraction (chemistry)Chemical nomenclatureSample (material)Scale (ratio)Biochemical engineeringProcess engineeringComplex matrixSolvent extractionChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Approaches for sample preparation are developing rapidly as new strategies are implemented to improve sample throughput and to minimize material and solvent use in laboratory methods and to develop on-site capabilities. In majority of cases the key step in sample preparation is extraction, typically used to separate and enrich compounds of interests from the matrix in the extraction phase. In this contribution, the topic of analytical scale extraction is put in perspective emphasising the fundamental aspects of the underlying processes discussing the similarities and differences between different approaches. Classification of extraction techniques according to the mass transfer principles is provided.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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