MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409202491 · doi:10.1016/j.afres.2025.100878

Basic and practical analysis of LF-NMR and straightforward toolbox to its successful operation

2025· article· en· W4409202491 on OpenAlex
Ali Asghari, Afroza Sultana, Seddik Khalloufi

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Food Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsToolboxComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Extremely tight H-bonding in solids (such as ice) is not in a measurable range in LF-NMR. • Maintaining a prior stable temperature of the sample along with the NMR temperature is required. • Both H-bonding strength and quantity involve generating signal intensity. • Calibration of LF-NMR is mandatory to avoid common operating pitfalls. • Number of observations and scanning are required to reduce noises and artifacts. Low-field NMR (LF-NMR) gained popularity due to its diverse advantages, including non-destructive testing, plug-and-play operation (requiring only electricity), rapid analysis, affordability, simplicity, and portability. However, some users (students and new users) frequently face challenges in operating and obtaining scientifically sound results. Although operating LF-NMR is quite easy, improper calibration and failure to maintain surrounding conditions can lead to unreliable relaxation times. From practical experiences, this article aims to include necessary steps for its operation and guide users in troubleshooting common challenges. This contribution is structured to answer practical questions that the operator may have when using LF-NMR. For example, can LF-NMR be used when H-bonds are extremely tight? How can signal noises be minimized? Why are time intervals between observations necessary? Notably, prior incubation of samples at the operating temperature of the NMR (32 °C in this study) for at least 1 h effectively stabilized sample temperature, reducing fluctuations in relaxometry. Performing a minimum of two scans with multiple observations also minimized noise and artifacts. To make it a useful and easy practical guide, the results depicted in this study are based on real food systems such as egg yolk, honey, water, corn oil, and canola oil. Besides, sample selection is crucial to avoid using LF-NMR outside its applicable range; for instance, ice was unsuitable for detecting its T 2 relaxation time due to its extremely tight H-bonding. This guidebook avoids lengthy theoretical explanations; instead, rapid instructions from practical aspects of correct and incorrect situations are instructed to avoid common pitfalls.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.412 · 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