MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389441888 · doi:10.2144/btn-2023-0075

Comparison of Colorimetric, Spectroscopic and Electrochemical Techniques for Quantification of Hydrogen Sulfide

2023· article· en· W4389441888 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

VenueBioTechniques · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSulfur Compounds in Biology
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityYork University
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHydrogen sulfideChemistryChromatographyElectrochemistryAqueous solutionMolar concentrationSulfideElectrodeSulfurOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), an endogenous gasotransmitter, has potential applications in several conditions. However, its quantification in simulated physiological solutions is a major challenge due to its gaseous nature and other physicochemical properties. Aim: This study was designed to compare four commonly used H2S detection and quantification methods in aqueous solutions. Methods: The four techniques compared were one colorimetric, one chromatographic and two electrochemical methods. Results: Colorimetric and chromatographic methods quantified H2S in millimolar and micromole ranges, respectively. The electrochemical methods quantified H2S in the nanomole and picomole ranges and were less time-consuming. Conclusion: The H2S quantification method should be selected based on the specific requirements of a research project in terms of sensitivity, response time and cost-effectiveness.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.317 · 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