The Jubilant DraxImage SMART-FILL® Dispensing System: An Evaluation of the Accuracy and Precision of the Dispensing System
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1123 Objectives The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the SMART-FILL® Dispensing System when dispensing various volumes of aqueous solutions. Methods A series of replicate solutions were dispensed using the SMART-FILL® Dispensing System. In each case the accuracy of the volume was determined (i.e. how close the measured value is to the actual requested volume) as well as the precision across multiple replicates of the same volume (i.e. repeatability of the dispensing process). Furthermore, since the Dispensing System has the capability to prepare both radioactive liquid and capsules, both of these process were examined by dispensing samples of known volume in two different ways, namely in glass vials and in phosphate-filled capsules. Results In general, the precision or repeatability of the dispensing volume using the SMART-FILL® System was very good. The relative standard deviation (i.e. RSD) for both experiments was below 5% for samples greater than 15 µL. When dispensing volumes of approximately 5 µL, the error in the measurement is between 10-15% but for even smaller volumes (i.e. 2 µL) the uncertainty increases to greater than 20%. When dispensing capsules in the range of 2-220µL, the relative error in the measurement is less than 5%. Conclusions The SMART-FILL® Dispensing System dispenses accurate volumes with good precision in the range of 15-220 µL. In this range, the relative standard deviation, which represents the uncertainty in a measurement, is below 5%.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it