MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057859621 · doi:10.1021/jf010341b

α-Terpineol from Hydration of Crude Sulfate Turpentine Oil

2001· article· en· W2057859621 on OpenAlexaff
Hooshang Pakdel, Stéphanie Sarron, Christian Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiodiesel Production and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurpentineTerpineolChemistryalpha-PineneHexaneAcetoneYield (engineering)PineneSulfuric acidOrganic chemistryChromatographyEssential oilLimoneneMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydration of alpha-pinene under various conditions was studied and compared with the literature. Optimal reaction conditions have been established for the hydration of alpha-pinene and crude turpentine oil in the absence of catalyst and using a low volume of acetone. A detailed reaction product analysis is reported. The main hydration product, alpha-terpineol, was obtained at a yield of 67 wt % of the initial alpha-pinene by reacting with 15% aqueous sulfuric acid and an excess of acetone in an oil bath heated to 80-85 degrees C over the course of 4 h. A progressive transformation of alpha-terpineol to 4-(2-hydroxypropyl)-1-methylcyclohexanol (1,8-terpine) takes place as the hydration time exceeds 4 h. A crude turpentine oil sample was also hydrated under conditions similar to those of alpha-pinene. The alpha-terpineol yield was 77 wt % of the initial alpha-pinene in the crude turpentine oil. The chemical analysis of the crude turpentine oil before and after hydration was carried out, and the distribution of the products was discussed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 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

Citations41
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicBiodiesel Production and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207