Fatty Acid, Tocopherol and Sterol Compositions of Canadian Prairie Fruit Seed Lipids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The seeds of four prairie fruits—chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), thorny buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii) and hawthorn (Crataegus × mordenensis)—from Southern Alberta were investigated. The lipid contents of the seeds were found to be 10.4, 11.5, 3.7 and 3.4%, respectively. The tested seed lipids contained mainly linoleic acid in the range from 27.9 to 65.6% and oleic acid from 19.7 to 61.9%. The thorny buffaloberry and Woods’ rose seed lipids contained 29.2 and 30.8% of linolenic acid, respectively. The contents of palmitic and stearic acids ranged from 3.2 to 5.4% and 1.6 to 2.2%, respectively. The contents of total tocopherols in the chokecherry, thorny buffaloberry, Woods’ rose and hawthorn seed lipids accounted for 595, 897, 2,358 and 2,837 mg/kg, respectively. The main sterols in the lipids were β‐sitosterol, Δ5‐avenasterol, cycloartenol, campesterol, stigmasterol and gramisterol. The results of the present study show that the lipids from the seeds of the investigated prairie fruits could be a good source of valuable essential fatty acids, tocopherols and sterols, thus suggesting their application as functional foods and nutraceuticals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".