MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1576374658 · doi:10.1089/act.2011.17409

Turmeric <i>(Curcuma longa)</i> : An Evidence-Based Systematic Review by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration

2011· article· en· W1576374658 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Ulbricht, Ethan Basch, Ernie‐Paul Barrette, Heather Boon, Wendy Chao, Dawn Costa, Elizabeth R.B. Higdon, Richard Isaac, Margaret Lynch, George N. Papaliodis, Jill M. Grimes Serrano, Minney Varghese, Mamta Vora, Regina C. Windsor, Jen Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternative and Complementary Therapies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCurcumin's Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)Library scienceWindsorCurcumaSection (typography)ClassicsMedicineTraditional medicineArtArt historyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAlternative and Complementary TherapiesSame topicCurcumin's Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207