MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034245981 · doi:10.1515/hf.2007.033

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

2007· article· en· W2034245981 on OpenAlexafffund
Russell J. Chedgy, C. R. Daniels, John F. Kadla, Colette Breuil

Bibliographic record

VenueHolzforschung · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFPInnovationsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Arizona
KeywordsThujaRepeatabilityChromatographyChemistryExtraction (chemistry)High-performance liquid chromatographySonicationDetection limitMethanolResponse factorBotanyBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolzforschungSame topicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityFrench-language works237,207