MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413099853 · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.5c00962

Open Specy 1.0: Automated (Hyper)spectroscopy for Microplastics

2025· article· en· W4413099853 on OpenAlexaff
Win Cowger, Aleksandra Karapetrova, Clarissa Lincoln, Ali Chamas, Hannah Sherrod, Nicholas Leong, Katherine S. Lasdin, Christine M. Knauss, Vesna Teofilović, Monica M. Arienzo, Zacharias Steinmetz, Sebastian Primpke, Lindsay Darjany, Clare Murphy-Hagan, Shelly Moore, Charles J. Moore, Gwen Lattin, Andrew B. Gray, Rachel Kozloski, Jeremiah Bryksa, Benjamin Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
FundersNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryWater Power Technologies OfficeDivision of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of CaliforniaNational Institute of Food and AgricultureUniversity of Southern California Sea Grant, University of Southern CaliforniaMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog RazvojaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingSmoothingStandard deviationChemistryArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceAlgorithmStatisticsComputer visionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microplastic spectral analysis is one of the most time-consuming processes in studying microplastic pollution, often requiring days per sample. Researchers are transitioning to automated batch and hyperspectral image analysis techniques to enhance efficiency. Open Specy, initially aimed at manual single-spectrum analysis, has now integrated automated methods. This updated version, Open Specy 1.0, introduces several new features, including two algorithms for automated processing (smoothing and particle compression), an extensive library containing over 40,000 open-source Raman and FTIR spectra, and two machine learning classifiers (logistic regression and k medoids) developed from this library. Furthermore, it includes a revamped user interface, an R package, and a benchmark data set for testing future advancements in automated techniques. Researchers evaluated various configurations for hyperspectral smoothing, particle identification, compression, and splitting, to achieve combined recovery rates between 50 and 150% particle counts, identities, and sizes with a coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 40% (the accredited standard). Mean absorbance times the standard deviation provided a consistent particle identification. Hyperspectral smoothing led to a 96% combined recovery rate and reduced variability (CV = 38%) compared to the 86% recovery (CV = 83%) of nonsmoothed controls. Additionally, compressing spectra for particles was significantly faster (>3×) and showed similar accuracy but with reduced variability than processing each pixel individually. Key challenges persist in automating spectral analysis, particularly in refining particle splitting algorithms, and improving identification routines to minimize false positives and negatives. New methods in sample preparation for better stabilization and dispersion of particles could overcome some of these issues.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.023

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207