MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198153978 · doi:10.1063/5.0062200

Green analysis impact in the determination of iron (Fe) against validation on well water

2021· article· en· W3198153978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tri Esti Purbaningtias, Zulfa Afifah, Bayu Wiyantoko, Puji Kurniawati

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetection limitMathematicsDecimalLinearityComposition (language)Standard deviationNational standardAnalytical Chemistry (journal)StatisticsQuarter (Canadian coin)ChemistryChromatographyArithmeticEngineeringFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of green analysis in the determination of Fe is done by minimizing the amount of material from the standard method (SNI-6989-4-2009) to half, a quarter, and a fifth part. The iron (Fe) test results obtained according to the standard, half, quarter and one-fifth methods respectively were 0.2098; 0.2418; 0.2194; and 0.2080 ppm. These results indicate that well water is safe for consumption because it is below the threshold determined by the Regulation of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Indonesia No. 492 of 2010. Validation of atomic absorption spectrophotometer (SSA) method for determining iron content (Fe) which includes linearity, Limit of Detection (LOD), Limit of Quantification (LOQ), precision, and accuracy shows good results for all variations in composition because following quality control requirements that exist in the standard method. But the one-way ANOVA test results for the four variations showed a significant difference. Composition following standard methods and one-fifth of the parts showed no different results. Whereas the variation in the composition of half and a quarter showed different results from the composition of standard testing. This is due to the composition of half and a quarter parts, the amount of HNO3 used is not integers (in decimal numbers) so that it affects the accuracy of the amount taken.

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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207