Radical scavenging activity of canola hull phenolics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Possible use of canola hulls as a source of natural anti‐oxidants was explored. Cyclone canola hulls were extracted with methanol (30 to 80%, vol/vol) and acetone (30 to 80%, vol/vol). The free radical‐scavenging activity of phenolic extracts so prepared was evaluated using the 2,2′‐azinobis‐(3‐ethylbenzothiazoline‐6‐sulfonate) (ABTS) radical ion (ABTSo−), 1,1‐diphenyl‐2‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical, and chemiluminescence assays. The total content of phenolics in prepared extracts from canola hulls ranged from 15 to 136 mg sinapic acid equivalents per gram of extract. Higher levels of condensed tannins were detected in the acetone extracts than in the corresponding methanolic counterparts. Seventy and 80% (vol/vol) acetone extracts displayed markedly stronger antioxidant activity than any of the other extracts investigated. Statistically significant linear correlations were found between TEAC (Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity) values (expressed in mM of Trolox equivalents per gram of extract) and total pehnolics, TEAC and total condensed tannins (i.e., determined using the modified vanillin and pronthocyanidin assays), as well as TEAC and protein precipitation activity of phenolic extracts (i.e., measured using the dye‐labeled assay). The antioxidant activities of extracts as determined by the ABTSo− radical ion assay correlated highly with those of the chemiluminescence and DPPH radical assays.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".