MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220951517 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24395

Experimental methods in chemical engineering: Gas chromatography— <scp>GC</scp>

2022· article· en· W4220951517 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Héla Laajimi, Federico Galli, Gregory S. Patience, Dalma Schieppati

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookePolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas chromatographyChemistryFlame ionization detectorChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Resolution (logic)Mass spectrometryBleedPyrolysisOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gas chromatography (GC) separates volatile and semi‐volatile liquids and gases based on their affinity for a stationary phase, either a thin liquid or a polymer layer on a solid. A gaseous mobile phase carries the volatile compounds from an injection port to a column with the stationary phase and then to an amdetector. The most common detectors are based on mass spectrometry (MS), thermal conductivity, and flame ionization. A furnace houses the columns and maintains or ramps temperatures to increase the separation efficiency—reduce run time or increase peak separation (resolution). The analyst chooses the chemistry of the stationary phase and the physical structure of the columns based on the polarity and functional groups of the solute. Packed columns tolerate impurities better than capillary columns that have a greater separating power and bleed the functional groups less. Efficiency is best when the sample polarity matches the column polarity. High temperatures and contamination cause columns to bleed the active components, which reduces the resolution but might also introduce ghost peaks to the chromatogram. The Web of Science assigned 15 000 articles to chemical engineering that mention GC and gas chromatography as keywords. Since 2017, it has indexed close to 1000 new articles every year. A bibliometric analysis classifies these contributions into four clusters: (1) pyrolysis and biomass, (2) GC–MS and extraction, (3) lignin and aromatics, and (4) decomposition and kinetics.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207