MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608264578 · doi:10.1002/jms.3938

Forensic analysis of latent fingermarks by silver‐assisted LDI imaging MS on nonconductive surfaces

2017· article· en· W2608264578 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nidia Lauzon, Martin Dufresne, A. Beaudoin, Pierre Chaurand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mass Spectrometry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryNanotechnologyWaxMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silver-assisted laser desorption ionization (AgLDI) imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) has been demonstrated to be a useful technology for fingermark analysis allowing for the detection of several classes of endogenous as well as exogenous compounds. Ideally, in IMS analyses, the fingermarks are deposited under controlled conditions on metallized conductive target slides. However, in forensic investigations, fingermarks are often found on a variety of nonconductive surfaces. A sputtered silver layer renders the target surface conductive, which allows the analyses of insulating surfaces by time-of-flight IMS. Ultimately, the major consideration when developing analytical methods for the analysis of latent fingermarks is their capability to be incorporated within forensic standard operational procedures. To demonstrate the potential of AgLDI IMS for forensic applications, fingermarks deposited on nonconductive surfaces commonly found during an investigation, including paper, cardboard, plastic bags and lifting tape, were first revealed by the Sûreté du Québec by using forensic enhancement techniques prior to the IMS analyses. Numerous endogenous compounds including fatty acids, cholesterol, squalene, wax esters, triglycerides and several exogenous substances were detected and imaged. Here, we show that silver sputtering can provide visual enhancements of fingerprint patterns after FET procedures through different scenarios in which AgLDI IMS can contribute to forensic investigations. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mass SpectrometrySame topicForensic Fingerprint Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207