MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805885115 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.17-0495

Multiresidue Method of Analysis of Pesticides in Medical Cannabis

2018· article· en· W2805885115 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan R Moulins, Michel Blais, Kim Montsion, Josée Tully, William S. Mohan, Mathieu Gagnon, Tyler McRitchie, Keri Kwong, Neil Snider, David R. Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisPesticideChromatographySolid phase extractionGas chromatography–mass spectrometryChemistrySample preparationPesticide residueExtraction (chemistry)High-performance liquid chromatographyMass spectrometryBiologyMedicineAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three related analytical methods were developed and validated for the determination of pesticides in cannabis leaves, dried cannabis flowers, and cannabis oil. The methods follow the generic sequence of an acetonitrile extraction, followed by solid-phase extraction cleanup and analysis by HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS), GC-MS/MS, and GC-MS. These methods were developed to accommodate sample quantity and lipid content of the different matrices. Validation at a spiking level of 0.01 μg/g was successful for 39 pesticides in cannabis leaves and 40 pesticides in cannabis oil, and at 0.02 μg/g for 32 pesticides in cannabis flowers, with the majority of analytes showing recoveries within the acceptable range of 70-130%. With these methods established, unannounced inspections of Canadian licensed producers of cannabis revealed that out of 144 samples collected, 26 showed the presence of unauthorized pest control products.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207