MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233760481 · doi:10.1016/s0958-2118(17)30171-4

Synthetic membrane characterisation – a review: part II

2017· article· en· W4233760481 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

VenueMembrane Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMembraneNanotechnologyMembrane biophysicsEngineeringFeature (linguistics)ChemistryComputer scienceMaterials scienceBiochemical engineeringMembrane proteinPhilosophyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Membrane characterisation provides a crucial link between the preparation and performance of membranes and their structure, chemistry, morphology, transport properties and other characteristics. This feature article – published in two parts – covers various characterisation techniques. The first instalment, which was published in the July 2017 issue of Membrane Technology, looks at why it is necessary to carry out membrane characterisation and provides details of common methods that are used. The second part of this article, which appears here, discusses membrane surface chemistry, and looks at a range of other characterisation techniques.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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