MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387607546 · doi:10.3389/fsens.2023.1242886

Impedance properties of biomass in support of practical mensuration in rain gardens

2023· article· en· W4387607546 on OpenAlexafffund
Farhad Jalilian, Caterina Valeo, Angus Chu, Rustom B. Bhiladvala

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsCapacitanceElectrical impedanceBiomass (ecology)Capacitive sensingEnvironmental sciencePseudomonas putidaRange (aeronautics)Materials scienceSoil scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialChemistryChromatographyGeologyEngineeringElectrical engineeringBacteriaEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impedance microbiology was explored to provide insights into how a sensor that can monitor the growth of bacteria in vegetated bioretention systems (rain gardens) may be designed for in situ, real-time use. The impedance properties of Pseudomonas Putida samples were monitored under AC signals of 100 mV peak-to-peak and sweeping frequencies of 20 Hz–300 kHz, to determine relationships between these properties and biomass in the laboratory. The capacitance of the samples was found to be the most sensitive impedance parameter, with average change in magnitude of 37% due to bacterial growth. For verification, optical density measurements were taken and calibrated by direct hemocytometry counts of similar samples, simultaneously with the impedance testing. The experiments revealed that exponential relationships enable a good estimate of the biomass available in the medium, based on the change in capacitance. The detection range of the proposed system (in the range of tested strain) is approximately ∼9.2 × 106 cells/mL to ∼5 × 108 cells/mL.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in SensorsSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207