Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction between the matrix and analyte molecules are studied with a high resolution MALDI imaging technique in an orthogonal-injection TOF mass spectrometer. The analyte incorporation and distribution patterns have been clearly demonstrated. Purified protein analytes were found to be homogeneously incorporated in large single crystals of DHB and sinapinic acid matrices, with no evidence for preferred crystal faces. Segregation of some species was observed and appeared to correlate with analyte hydrophobicity, and to a lesser extent analyte mass or mobility. \n\nThe influence of incident laser parameters on sensitivity in MALDI has been investigated using orthogonal-injection time-of-flight (TOF) instruments. A qualitative comparison was first made between the beam profiles obtained with a N2 laser and a Nd:YAG laser using 2-m long optical fibers. The N2 laser gives better sensitivity, consistent with a more uniform fluence distribution and therefore better coverage of the N2 laser profile. Most of the difference disappears when a 30-m long fiber is used or when the fibers are twisted during irradiation to smooth out the fluence distribution. In more systematic measurements, the total integrated ion yield from a single spot (a measure of sensitivity) was found to increase rapidly with fluence to a maximum, and then saturate or decrease slightly. For a fluence near threshold, the integrated yield has a steep (cubic) dependence on the spot size, but the yield saturates at higher fluence for smaller spots. The area dependence is much weaker (close to linear) for fluence values above saturation, with the result that the highest integrated yields per unit area are obtained with the smallest spot sizes. \n\nFinally the detection properties of the MCP detector were studied with a hybrid MCP and CuBe venetian blind converter detector. The measurements show that the detection efficiency of the MCP drops with the increasing of ion mass and the decreasing of the ion energy. The secondary electron emission coefficient of the MCP shows a linear dependence on mass and a power law dependence on velocity (~ 3.2). No clear velocity threshold is observed for secondary electron emission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".