Antioxidant activity of flaxseed meal components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".