MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079103585 · doi:10.1007/s11746-013-2254-8

Minor Components in Canola Oil and Effects of Refining on These Constituents: A Review

2013· review· en· W2079103585 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaRefining (metallurgy)Crude oilOil refineryChemistryPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceFood scienceEngineeringPetroleum engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crude canola oil is composed mainly of triacylglycerols but contains considerable amounts of desirable and undesirable minor components. Crude canola oil is refined in order to remove undesirable minor compounds that make this oil unusable in food products. However, refining can also cause the removal of desirable health‐promoting minor components from the oil. The first section of this review describes the chemical composition of canola oil, followed by a brief introduction to the effects of minor components on canola oil quality and stability. Following a review of traditional canola oil refining methods, the effects of individual refining stages on the removal of both desirable and undesirable components from canola oil are presented and contrasted with other common vegetable oils.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.279 · 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