MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971819817 · doi:10.1039/c9em00215d

Theory and modelling approaches to passive sampling

2019· review· en· W2971819817 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science Processes & Impacts · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)Interpretation (philosophy)Sampling theoryComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematicsStatisticsTelecommunicationsSample size determination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designs and applications of passive samplers for various environmental compartments have been broadened significantly since their introduction. Understanding the theory behind passive sampling is essential for proper development of sampling methods and for accurate interpretation of the results. Theoretical underpinnings of passive sampling have been explored using different approaches. The aim of this review is to describe passive sampling theory and modelling approaches presented in the literature in a manner that allows researchers to obtain comprehensive understanding of them and to recognize the assumptions behind each approach together with their applicability to a given passive sampling technique. A common approach originates from Whitman's two-film theory and produces an exponential model that describes the entire passive sampling process. This approach, however, is based on several assumptions including linear exchange kinetics between the sampled medium and the passive sampler. Two-phase air passive samplers with a well-defined barrier are commonly modeled based on the zero-sink assumption, which assumes efficient trapping of analytes in the receiving phase. This assumption may become invalid under various scenarios; consequently, other approaches to modelling have been introduced including simulation of the sampling process by approximate temporal-steady states in hypothetical segments in the adsorption phase. Another approach uses dynamic models to determine accumulation of analytes in passive samplers. Dynamic models are capable of describing mass accumulation in the passive sampler, its transient response, and its response to fluctuations in environmental concentrations. Finally, empirically calibrated models, attempting to simplify the process of passive sampling rate determination, are also presented. In general, dynamic models are used to establish a profound understanding of the sampling process and analyse the applicability of the simpler models and their assumptions, while the simplified models are desirable and practical for most users. Nonetheless, due to the advancement in the computational tools, application of the dynamic models could be made simple and user-friendly.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.434
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.036 · 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