MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082633541 · doi:10.1002/mrc.5094

Exploration of continuous‐flow benchtop NMR acquisition parameters and considerations for reaction monitoring

2020· article· en· W3082633541 on OpenAlexafffund
Tristan Maschmeyer, Paloma L. Prieto, Shad Grunert, Jason E. Hein

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Chemistry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsAnalyteChemistryVolumetric flow rateAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Flow (mathematics)Data acquisitionBiological systemNuclear magnetic resonanceChromatographyMechanicsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on fundamental data acquisition parameter selection for a benchtop nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) system with continuous flow, applicable for reaction monitoring. The effect of flow rate on the mixing behaviors within a flow cell was observed, along with an exponential decay relationship between flow rate and the apparent spin-lattice relaxation time (T1*) of benzaldehyde. We also monitored sensitivity (as determined by signal-to-noise ratios; SNRs) under various flow rates, analyte concentrations, and temperatures of the analyte flask. Results suggest that a maximum SNR can be achieved with low to medium flow rates and higher analyte concentrations. This was consistent with data collected with parameters that promote either slow or fast data acquisition. We further consider the effect of these conditions on the analyte's residence time, T1*, and magnetic field inhomogeneity that is a product of continuous flow. Altogether, our results demonstrate how fundamental acquisition parameters can be manipulated to achieve optimal data acquisition in continuous-flow NMR systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in ChemistrySame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207