Extraction of resinoids from St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L): I. Efficiency and optimization of extraction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extraction of resinoids from St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L) was studied in a series of two papers. In the first part, the effects of the operating conditions on the yield of resinoids (total extract) were analyzed, while the mathematical models of extraction kinetics were compared in the second one. The extraction was carried out using an aqueous solution of ethanol (70 and 95 % v/v) at a hydromodulus (plant material to solvent ratio, w/v) of 1:5 or 1:10. The plant material was disintegrated and divided into three fractions (mean particle size: 0.23, 0.57 and 1.05 mm). The temperature was 25, 50 or about 80?C (boiling temperature). A higher yield of resinoids was obtained when the plant material of greater disintegration degree (0.23 mm) was treated with 70% v/v aqueous ethanol solution at higher hydromoduli (1:10) and temperatures (80?C). The effects of the operating factors on the yield of resinoids were estimated by using both the full factorial experimental plan 24 and artificial neuronic networks (ANN) of 3-4-1 topology. Of the two methods, the ANN one was found to be advantageous because of its capability of estimating the yield of resinoids in the whole range of the applied operating conditions.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it