MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012249513 · doi:10.1021/jf010369n

Processing Effects on the Composition of Sea Buckthorn Juice from <i>Hippophae rhamnoides</i> L. Cv. Indian Summer

2001· article· en· W2012249513 on OpenAlexaffabout
T. Beveridge, Jayne Harrison, John C. G. Drover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemical and Pharmacological Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryFood scienceMalic acidBerryCitric acidSugarBrixSucroseTitratable acidFructoseTartaric acidHippophae rhamnoidesAscorbic acidBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea buckthorn juice is one product that can be derived from the sea buckthorn berry, a new alternative crop for the Canadian western provinces. Fresh pressed juice separates into three phases when allowed to stand overnight in the refrigerator: an upper cream phase, juice in the middle portion, and a sediment at the bottom. Enzymatic hydrolysis with commercial, broad spectrum carbohydrate hydrolyzing enzyme preparations reduced the juice viscosity, assisted juice separation, and provided an opalescent juice. Soluble solids averaged 10.2 degrees Brix, pH averaged 3.13, ascorbic acid averaged 174.2 mg/100 mL, and titratable acidity averaged 1.97% as malic acid all determined on centrifuged (10 000 rpm, 15 min) juice. Soluble sugars included glucose, fructose, and an unidentified component that was not sucrose or other common soluble monomeric or dimeric sugar. Quinic acid was quantitatively most important, while malic was next, and oxalic, citric, and tartaric acids were minor components. Washing berries by dipping reduced soluble solids (degrees Brix) in juice suggesting uptake of wash water.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPhytochemical and Pharmacological StudiesFrench-language works237,207