MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122821979 · doi:10.3920/wmj2020.2664

Developments in mycotoxin analysis: an update for 2019-2020

2021· article· en· W3122821979 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Mycotoxin Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCarleton University
FundersMinisterstvo Školství, Mládeže a TělovýchovyU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMycotoxinBiochemical engineeringQuality assuranceEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceChromatographyBiotechnologyChemistryBiologyEngineeringExternal quality assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review summarises developments on the analysis of various matrices for mycotoxins published in the period from mid-2019 to mid-2020. Notable developments in all aspects of mycotoxin analysis, from sampling and quality assurance/quality control of analytical results, to the various detection and quantitation technologies ranging from single mycotoxin biosensors to comprehensive instrumental methods are presented and discussed. Aside from sampling and quality control, discussion of this past year’s developments is organised by detection and quantitation technology and covers chromatography with targeted or non-targeted high resolution mass spectrometry, tandem mass spectrometry, detection other than mass spectrometry, biosensors, as well as assays that use alternatives to antibodies. This critical review aims to briefly present the most important recent developments and trends in mycotoxin determination as well as to address limitations of the presented methodologies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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