Tape Lift Sampling of Chemical Threat Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) materials were evaluated as surface samplers for the Department of Homeland Security Chemical Forensics Program. The program helps evidence collectors identify trace chemical residues at incident scenes. COTS items are widely available, produced in large lots, and with strict controls. Chemical attribution signatures were collected from common surfaces. Eight tape lift candidates were considered, five were chosen based on performance and tested for analytical interferences and extraction efficiencies with 14 chemicals. Three products (duct tape, print lifters, command strips) were evaluated for uptake from common interior surfaces (glass, tile, ABS plastic). Duct tape provided highest recoveries across all surfaces. Even the most volatile analytes were detected in the ABS plastic samples (nondetections in others), regardless of tape lift material used. The porous plastic substrate provides better target retention than glass and tile surfaces. Forensic field operators should sample surfaces made of ABS plastic (keyboards, remotes, phones, etc.) whenever possible.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".