MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921875538 · doi:10.4141/cjps2013-018

Antioxidant activity of flaxseed meal components

2014· article· en· W1921875538 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Véronique J. Barthet, Dorota Klensporf‐Pawlik, Roman Przybylski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntioxidantFood scienceMealChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barthet, V. J., Klensporf-Pawlik, D. and Przybylski, R. 2014. Antioxidant activity of flaxseed meal components. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 593–602. The meals of borage, hemp, Solin, golden, and brown flaxseed, including the meals of dehulled flaxseed and their corresponding hulls, were reconstituted with 40% of standard flaxseed oil and stored for 2 wk to assess if these meals had any antioxidant activity to protect in situ oil from oxidation. Weekly measured peroxide and aldehyde values showed that Solin, golden and brown flaxseed meals had more effective antioxidant activity than hemp and borage meals. Flaxseed hull showed very weak antioxidant potential, whereas dehulled meals maintained their antioxidant activity. This suggested that secoisolariciresinol diglucoside was not acting as the primary antioxidant of flaxseed meal. The seed antioxidant activity was greatly affected by water extraction, suggesting that the system contains water-soluble components. When flaxseed oil was recombined with the freeze-dried water extracts of flaxseed meal some loses of antioxidant activity were observed. The results showed that the water-extracted components retained some antioxidant activity compared with the original flaxseed meal antioxidant activity. These results indicate that the flaxseed antioxidant activities were mainly due to a water-soluble system – probably proteins: however, more than one group of components of the flax meal may be involved to provide the seed with its effective and unique antioxidant properties.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207