MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034959302 · doi:10.1080/10942912.2012.700536

Fluoresence Spectra From Vegetable Oils Using Violet And Blue Ld/Led Exitation And An Optical Fiber Spectrometer

2013· article· en· W2034959302 on OpenAlexaff
Krastena Nikolova, М. Zlatanov, Tinko Eftimov, Daniel BRABANT, S. Yosifova, E. Halil, Ginka Antova, Mina Angelova

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Properties · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdulterantFluorescence spectroscopyFluorescenceSunflower oilOlive oilChemistryVegetable oilAnalytical Chemistry (journal)SpectroscopyFiberChromatographyFood scienceOpticsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article the possibility to detect adulteration of costly olive oils with cheaper vegetable oils using fluorescence spectroscopy is studied. Total luminescence spectra were recorded by measuring the emission spectra in the range 350 nm to 720 nm for excitation wavelengths from 375 nm to 450 nm. Fluorescence spectra of 12 types of olive oil samples were studied. Ten of the olive oil types were purchased locally, while two (samples 1 and 4) were obtained directly from Greek olive oil producers. Analysis of the fatty acid and the tocopherol contents has been performed. Two of the samples exhibit the content of sunflower oils, two are admixtures of sunflower and olive oils, while the remaining eight samples are natural olive oils. The samples show differences in their fluorescence spectra. The latter fact shows that fluorescence spectroscopy can be used for the quick identification of possible adulterations of olive oil, although a more detailed gas chromatographic analysis is needed for the exact quantitative determination of the content of the adulterant.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food PropertiesSame topicEdible Oils Quality and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207