MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028665223 · doi:10.1515/hf.2006.030

Yield and composition of lipophylic extracts of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) as a function of wood age and aging under industrial conditions

2006· article· en· W2028665223 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Michel Lavoie, Tatjana Stevanović

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNatural product bioactivities and synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYellow birchComposition (language)Betula pendulaSawdustBotanyExtraction (chemistry)Betula pubescensYield (engineering)SoftwoodChemistryHorticultureChemical compositionBiologyMapleMaterials scienceChromatographyOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The lipophylic extracts of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) have been investigated to detect the effect of tree age and wood storage time on extract composition. A total of 17 wood disks were cut from trees belonging to different age groups at 1 m above ground and the wood was milled as usual for extraction (laboratory samples). In addition, 49 sawdust samples were collected in a lumber mill to study the effect of industrial processing on the extractives (industrial samples). All laboratory and industrial samples were extracted with dichloromethane under sonication. The chemical composition of the lipophilic extracts obtained was analyzed by GC-MS. A systematic (quasi-linear) relationship was found between the lipophilic extract yield and specimen age. A total of 30 constituents from yellow birch extracts have been identified, 26 of which have never been previously reported for B. alleghaniensis wood.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicNatural product bioactivities and synthesisFrench-language works237,207