MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Drying on the Nutraceutical Quality of Sea Buckthorn ( <i>Hippophae rhamnoides</i> L. ssp. <i>sinensis</i> ) Leaves

2005· article· en· W2016904426 on OpenAlexafffund
Tiffany T. Y. Guan, Stefan Cenkowski, A.W. Hydamaka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemical and Pharmacological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersManitoba Rural Adaptation Council
KeywordsHippophae rhamnoidesCarotenoidNutraceuticalChemistryChlorophyllMoistureDried fruitBotanyChlorophyll aFood scienceHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The concentrations of total phenolics, carotenoids, and chlorophylls of fresh and dried sea buckthorn leaves were determined. Overall, drying of leaves resulted in a decrease in the concentrations of these phytochemicals. The degree of reduction depended on the drying time, temperature, or specific component type. For the phenolics, a greater reduction in concentration was observed in the leaves dried at higher temperatures (80 °C or 100 °C) for longer times (to equilibrium moisture contents of 1% to 3%) compared with those dried at lower temperatures (50 °C or 60 °C). For the leaves dried to higher final moisture (5% to 8%), all drying temperatures resulted in a similar final phenolic concentration. The carotenoid and chlorophyll concentrations in the leaves decreased with the increasing temperatures. However, higher temperatures such as 80 °C or 100 °C resulted in similar carotenoid and chlorophyll concentrations in the leaves. Nonetheless, dried sea buckthorn leaves were of a high nutraceutical quality comparable to those of frequently consumed vegetables.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations63
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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