MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067453064 · doi:10.1007/s11746-004-0866-y

Extracting long‐chain fatty acids from a fermentation medium

2004· article· en· W2067453064 on OpenAlexafffund
Jerald A. Lalman, David M. Bagley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsChemistryCapric AcidChloroformChromatographyCaprylic acidHexaneMethanolExtraction (chemistry)Linoleic acidOleic acidFermentationSolventStearic acidPalmitic acidEthanolCaproic AcidFatty acidMethyl tert-butyl etherLong chain fatty acidEtherOrganic chemistryBiochemistryLauric acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several solvents were evaluated for extracting free long‐chain FA (LCFA) from a fermentation medium. Chloroform, chloroform/methanol (1∶1), hexane, and hexane/methyl tert ‐butyl ether (MTBE) (1∶1) were evaluated as alternative extraction solvents. Parameters considered for optimizing LCFA recoveries included pH and ionic strength. Maximal LCFA recoveries were obtained by adding 2 mL of the hexane/MTBE (1∶1) solvent mixture, 80 μL of 50% H 2 SO 4 , and 0.05 g NaCl to 1 mL of the aqueous sample and mixing for 15 min at 200 rpm. This method quantified saturated LCFA [capric acid (C 10∶0 ) to stearic acid (C 18∶0 )] and unsaturated LCFA with 18 carbons [linoleic acid (C 18∶2 ) and oleic acid (C 18∶1 )] with a 98 to 100% recovery. Caproic (C 6∶0 ) and caprylic (C 8∶0 ) acids were characterized by 27 and 76% recoveries, respectively.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207