MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082056935 · doi:10.1080/10412905.2006.9699380

Investigation of Leaf Essential Oil of<i>Myrica gale</i>L. from Quebec: Purification and Analysis of Oxygenated Fractions

2006· article· en· W2082056935 on OpenAlexaffabout
Muriel Sylvestre, Jean Legault, Serge Lavoie, André Pichette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Essential Oil Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal plant effects and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersConseil Régional de Guadeloupe
KeywordsChemistryFraction (chemistry)FractionationMyrceneTerpeneHumuleneEssential oilCitronellolChromatographyBotanyOrganic chemistryLimoneneGeraniolBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The leaf essential oil of Myrica gale L. was isolated by hydrodistillation. The chemical composition of the whole oil was determined by GC and GC/MS analyses. We identified 48 components and eudesm-11-en-4-ol (11.5%), myrcene (11.3%), β-caryophyllene (8.4%) and α-phellandrene (7.1%) were the major compounds. Many oxygenated components could not be immediately identified in this whole oil. Thus, fractionation of the leaf oil of M. gale by high pressure flash chromatography yielded four fractions that were analyzed by GC and GC/MS. Fraction 1 was a terpene hydrocarbon fraction, whereas fractions 2 and 3 were mainly composed of oxygenated compounds except alcohols. Germacrone (46.3%) was the major constituent in fraction 2 whereas caryophyllene oxide (44.8%) and humulene epoxide II (22.1%) were predominant in fraction 3. The fourth fraction contained exclusively alcohols with selin-11-en-4α-ol (78.6%) as the major component.

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 score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Essential Oil ResearchSame topicMedicinal plant effects and applicationsFrench-language works237,207