MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248721249 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv.13198688.v1

Automated Solubility Screening Platform Using Computer Vision

2020· preprint· en· W4248721249 on OpenAlexafffund
Parisa Shiri, Veronica Lai, Tara Zepel, Daniel Griffin, Jonathan Reifman, Sean Clark, Shad Grunert, Lars P. E. Yunker, Sebastian Steiner, Henry Situ, Fan Yang, Paloma L. Prieto, Jason E. Hein

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources CanadaAdvanced Research Projects AgencyDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaAmgenU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsAutomationSolubilityRoboticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProcess engineeringRobotEngineeringChemistryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solubility screening is an essential, routine process that is often labour intensive. Robotic platforms have been developed to automate some aspects of the manual labour involved. However, many of the existing systems rely on traditional analytic techniques such as High Performance Liquid Chromatography or HPLC, which require pre-calibration for each compound and can be prohibitively expensive. In addition, automation is not typically end-to-end, requiring user intervention to move vials, establish analytical methods for each compound and interpret the raw data. We developed a closed-loop, flexible robotics system with integrated solid and liquid dosing capabilities that relies on computer vision and iterative feedback to successfully measure caffeine solubility in multiple solvents. After initial researcher input (<2 min), the system ran autonomously, screening five different solvent systems (20-80 min each). The resulting data matched values obtained using traditional manual 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207