MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991562289 · doi:10.3390/s19235134

Metal Cation Detection in Drinking Water

2019· review· en· W2991562289 on OpenAlexafffund
Johnson Dalmieda, Peter Kruse

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionGlobal Water FuturesCanada First Research Excellence FundU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsCadmiumEnvironmental chemistryWater qualityMercury (programming language)ChemistryBariumAbsorbanceQuartz crystal microbalanceInorganic chemistryChromatographyAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining a clean water supply is of utmost importance for human civilization. Human activities are putting an increasing strain on Earth's freshwater reserves and on the quality of available water on Earth. To ensure cleanliness and potability of water, sensors are required to monitor various water quality parameters in surface, ground, drinking, process, and waste water. One set of parameters with high importance is the presence of cations. Some cations can play a beneficial role in human biology, and others have detrimental effects. In this review, various lab-based and field-based methods of cation detection are discussed, and the uses of these methods for the monitoring of water are investigated for their selectivity and sensitivity. The cations chosen were barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, hardness (calcium, magnesium), lead, mercury, nickel, silver, uranium, and zinc. The methods investigated range from optical (absorbance/fluorescence) to electrical (potentiometry, voltammetry, chemiresistivity), mechanical (quartz crystal microbalance), and spectrometric (mass spectrometry). Emphasis is placed on recent developments in mobile sensing technologies, including for integration into microfluidics.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations95
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicElectrochemical Analysis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207