MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176597673 · doi:10.11159/nddte21.lx.202

Toxic Metals Chelation by 18-Crown-6 Ethers in Multiple Solutions andQuantification by Spectroscopic Techniques

2021· article· en· W3176597673 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew L. Cook, Fan Xue, Todd D. Giorgio

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Recent Advances in Nanotechnology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCongressionally Directed Medical Research ProgramsVanderbilt Institute of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, Vanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsChelationCrown (dentistry)ChemistryEnvironmental chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toxic metals exposure is a significant problem for military personnel, with increasingly prevalent embedded fragments due to improvised explosive devices. Current biomonitoring for military personnel with embedded fragments is centralized, limiting capacity and availability. Importantly, monitoring using this approach begins long after peak exposure, indicating a need for portable, multiplexed toxic metals detection that can be carried out closer to the time of exposure with increased frequency. Small molecule chelators such as crown ethers are known to selectively bind metal cations in solution. Crown ethers possess selective chelation of multiple metal ions and is dependent on molecular structure, solution properties, and other parameters. This selectivity extends to multiple ions and depends on not only molecular structure, but also the solution properties. The goal of this study is to assess the potential for metal sensing in solution as a function of crown ether structure and solution properties with future use for toxic metal sensing from embedded fragments as a potential translational objective.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Recent Advances in NanotechnologySame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207