MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W72454036 · doi:10.5935/rvq.v5i2.323

Uso de Imagens Digitais e Análise de Componentes Principais na Identificação dos Níveis de Cr (VI) em Amostras de Solos

2013· article· pt· W72454036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luciana Fernandes de Oliveira, Natália T. Canevari, Amanda França de Jesus, Edenir R. Pereira Filho

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Virtual de Química · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proposicao de metodos simples e rapidos para a identificacao dos niveis de Cr (VI) em amostras de solos e desejavel para nortear estrategias de remediacao. O presente trabalho teve como objetivo desenvolver um procedimento para a identificacao de amostras de solos com concentracoes de Cr (VI) superiores aos valores estabelecidos pelas legislacoes internacionais. Uma amostra de solo foi fortificada com concentracoes de Cr (VI) que variaram de 0 a 20 mg kg -1 (total de 61 fortificacoes) e posteriormente submetidas a extracao alcalina. Os extratos foram colocados em placas de Petri, aos quais se adicionou difenilcarbazida 0,2 % (m v -1 ) como reagente colorimetrico e H 2 SO 4 (5 mol L -1 ) para o ajuste do pH. Apos o desenvolvimento da coloracao, as placas foram posicionadas em um scanner comercial e obtidas imagens da parte inferior. As imagens foram tratadas com programas computacionais para calculo dos seguintes descritores de cores (R, G, B, H, S, V, r, g, b e L) e, efetuou-se uma analise por ACP (Analise de componentes principais - Principal Component Analysis ). Houve uma boa separacao entre os valores acima e abaixo da legislacao italiana, a qual define um valor maximo de 2,0 mg kg -1 para Cr (VI). Tambem foram utilizados os valores de Cr (VI) das legislacoes do Canada e da Suecia e, em geral, as imagens permitiram a identificacao dos niveis de Cr (VI) para estes paises. Atraves da analise visual da ACP e possivel afirmar que as imagens digitais sao passiveis de uso para a proposicao de modelos de classificacao. DOI: 10.5935/1984-6835.20130019

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Virtual de QuímicaSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207