MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094066541 · doi:10.1039/d0ay01510e

Tiered approach to long-term weathered lubricating oil analysis: GC/FID, GC/MS diagnostic ratios, and multivariate statistics

2020· article· en· W3094066541 on OpenAlexaff
Candice C. Chua, Pamela Brunswick, Honoria Kwok, Jeffrey Yan, Daniel J. Cuthbertson, Graham van Aggelen, Dayue Shang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Methods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsStatisticsTerm (time)Gas chromatography–mass spectrometryChromatographyGas chromatographyMultivariate analysisEnvironmental scienceMathematicsChemistryMass spectrometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequent small-scale environmental releases of lubricating (lube) oils have deleterious effects on aquatic ecosystems. In the event of a spill, oil fingerprinting is critical to source attribution, clean-up procedures, and liability assignment. Oil forensic investigations are particularly challenging when oils are weathered over an extended period of time, as a large number of biomarkers become lost and the chemical composition changes significantly from its source. This study simulated an environmental case in which long-term weathered lube oil "spill" samples were matched to unweathered suspect "source" oils. While traditional oil fingerprinting techniques including GC/FID and GC/MS diagnostic ratios were insufficient for reliably attributing the source, a comprehensive and systematically tiered approach proved successful. The proposed methodology featured three tiers: Tier 1 GC/FID, Tier 2 GC/MS diagnostic ratios, and Tier 3 multivariate statistics. This novel approach provided environmental chemists with a powerful tool for dealing with an otherwise extremely challenging lube oil forensic investigation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical MethodsSame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207