MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068835368 · doi:10.2202/1556-3758.1283

Proximate Composition of the Apple Seed and Characterization of Its Oil

2007· article· en· W2068835368 on OpenAlexaff
Xiuzhu Yu, Frederick R. van de Voort, Zhixi Li, Tianli Yue

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProximateFood scienceChemistryStearic acidLinoleic acidComposition (language)Oleic acidPalmitic acidPotassiumPhosphorusAmino acidNutrientFatty acidBotanyBiologyBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apple seeds, a common byproduct of apple processing, have been examined for their overall proximate composition, fatty acid and amino acid composition of the lipid and protein components, respectively, as well as their key mineral constituents. Proximate analysis indicated that apple seeds are rich in oil content and protein ranging from 27.5 to 28% and 33.8 to 34.5% respectively, comparing favorably with oilseeds. GC analysis indicated high levels of linoleic acid (~49%) with the other dominant fatty acids being oleic, palmitic and stearic acids, ranging from ~39, 7 and 2% respectively. Amino acid analysis indicates that there are substantial amounts of sulfur containing amino acids in the apple seed. The apple seeds also contain significant amounts of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, calcium and iron, in the order of 720, 650, 510, 210 and 110 mg/100g, respectively. Based on the proximate composition of the apple seeds, if adequate amounts are available as a process byproduct, apple seeds could have value-added potential as a source of edible oil, with the oil cake potentially serving as an animal feed supplement.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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