Preparation and Characterization of a Suite of Ephedra-Containing Standard Reference Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and the National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements, are collaborating to produce a series of Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) for dietary supplements. A suite of ephedra materials is the first in the series, and this paper describes the acquisition, preparation, and value assignment of these materials: SRMs 3240 Ephedra sinica Stapf Aerial Parts, 3241 E. sinica Stapf Native Extract, 3242 E. sinica Stapf Commercial Extract, 3243 Ephedra-Containing Solid Oral Dosage Form, and 3244 Ephedra-Containing Protein Powder. Values are assigned for ephedrine alkaloids and toxic elements in all 5 materials. Values are assigned for other analytes (e.g., caffeine, nutrient elements, proximates, etc.) in some of the materials, as appropriate. Materials in this suite of SRMs are intended for use as primary control materials when values are assigned to in-house (secondary) control materials and for validation of analytical methods for the measurement of alkaloids, toxic elements, and, in the case of SRM 3244, nutrients in similar materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".