MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071175464 · doi:10.5539/jas.v5n2p219

Fiber Content and Mineral Composition of the Finger Millet of the Oasis of Gabes Tunisia

2013· article· en· W2071175464 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khouloud Bachar, Elhem Mansour, Abdennaceur Ben Khaled, Mabrouka Abid, Mansour Haddad, Leila Ben Yahya, Nacer EL JARRAY, Ali Ferchichi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEleusineNeutral Detergent FiberPotassiumNutrientFinger milletFiberDry matterSodiumPhosphorusMagnesiumAgronomyChemistryCalciumBiologyAnimal scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the decline in the areas reserved for the cultivation of the finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) in the coastal oasis, this specie had occupied an important place in the diet of the inhabitants of the south of Tunisia and especially the region of Gabes. To contribute to a better knowledge of this plant in the oasis of Gabes, mineral and fiber characterizations were performed for 30 samples collected from four oases of Gabes. For each sample 11 nutrients: (Na, K, P, Ca, Mg and N), the crude protein, the neutral detergent fiber, the acid detergent fiber, the crude fiber and ash contents, were studied. Results of minerals analysis showed that calcium and magnesium were the most concentrated nutrients in all studied accessions (189.93-1272.36 mg/100g and 84.71-567.45 mg/100g respectively), followed by potassium (11.24-284.7 mg/100g), sodium (13.73-42.47 mg/100g) and phosphorus (2.208-11.033 mg/100g). Acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, crude fiber and ash average contents of the accessions were respectively higher than 30.58, 12.65, 4.01 and 3.2% of dry matter of the finger millet.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207