MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908535954 · doi:10.1177/0967033518821834

Using near infrared measurements to evaluate NaCl and KCl in water

2019· article· en· W2908535954 on OpenAlexafffund
Reisha D. Peters, Scott D. Noble

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical and Physical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMosaic Company
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)AbsorbanceAqueous solutionSalinityAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryLinearityInfraredEnvironmental chemistryChromatographyMathematicsOpticsPhysicsPhysical chemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spectral differences between aqueous solutions of NaCl and KCl have received minimal attention in previous research due to strong similarities between the two salts and the lack of motivation to differentiate between them. Correlations between salinity and absorbance have been developed previously with varying degrees of linearity but have not been tested to saturation. This work will demonstrate that correlating spectral measurements and the concentration of NaCl and KCl in water can be extended up to the saturation point of both salts and that solutions of these salts with unknown concentrations can be distinguished. Spectral data for samples of NaCl and KCl in single-salt solutions were collected up to saturation and correlations were developed for differentiating between solutions of the two species. These correlations were able to correctly identify the solution type for all solutions in the test set and estimate their concentrations with an average error of 0.9%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Near Infrared SpectroscopySame topicChemical and Physical StudiesFrench-language works237,207