MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982379471 · doi:10.1021/jf000246n

Retention of Alkamides in Dried<i>Echinacea</i><i>p</i><i>urpurea</i>

2000· article· he· W1982379471 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldMedicine
TopicHerbal Medicine Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-performance liquid chromatographyEchinacea (animal)ChromatographyChemistryElutionVacuum dryingPharmacognosyBotanyFreeze-dryingTraditional medicineBiologyBiological activityBiochemistryIn vitroMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different drying methods, such as freeze-drying (FD), vacuum microwave drying (VMD), and air-drying (AD), were applied to fresh roots and leaves of Canadian-grown Echinacea purpurea to determine the optimal method for preserving alkamide levels. Using HPLC, six alkamide fractions (alkamides 1, 2, 3, 6a/6, 7, 8/9) were quantitated in dried roots, whereas four alkamide fractions (alkamides 1, 2, 3, 8/9) were measured in dried leaves. Different elution conditions used in HPLC for alkamide analysis did not affect the eluted fractions nor the quantitation of different alkamides. Individual alkamide concentrations in roots and leaves were affected by the drying methods used. To preserve higher levels of total alkamides, FD was found to be the best method, VMD was a superior method for drying roots than AD at 70 degrees C, while AD at 50 degrees C was the preferred method for drying leaves of E. purpurea.

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 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 score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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