Screening fungi tolerant to Western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn) extractives. Part 1. Mild extraction by ultrasonication and quantification of extractives by reverse-phase HPLC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn) heartwood samples were extracted in methanol. Reverse-phase HPLC with UV detection was used for extractive separation and analysis. Six major extractives were quantified by comparing analyte response with the response factor of an internal standard using single-point calibration. The limit of detection of the method was estimated as (μg ml-1): (–)-plicatic acid, 0.6; γ-thujaplicin, 3.0; β-thujaplicin, 3.0; β-thujaplicinol, 3.0; thujic acid, 0.6; and methyl thujate, 1.2. Yields were 36% higher for powdered than for sliced samples. A temperature of 4°C during ultrasonication yielded 16% more (–)-plicatic acid than in non-cooled extractions, but did not significantly increase yields for the remaining five compounds. The recovery and repeatability of the extraction method were assessed by adding the aromatic compounds methoxyhydroquinone and 2-acetonaphthone to heartwood samples before extraction. The recovery yield was ∼90% with ∼5% variability.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".