MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084144243 · doi:10.1002/elps.200305988

Chemical analysis of raw, dry‐roasted, and honey‐roasted licorice by capillary electrophoresis

2004· article· en· W2084144243 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

VenueElectrophoresis · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacological Effects of Natural Compounds
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycyrrhizinChemistryGlycyrrhizaRoastingChromatographyCapillary electrophoresisIngredientIsoliquiritigeninTraditional medicineDecoctionFood scienceBiochemistryBiologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In herbal medicine, licorice is usually processed using a roasting procedure which might modify the chemical compositions in licorice. To test this hypothesis, licorice root samples were roasted under various conditions (with or without honey) and subsequently extracted by refluxing with 95% ethanol. The analysis of chemical compositions of licorice root extracts was achieved by capillary electrophoresis. The running buffer has been optimized to be 50 mM sodium tetraborate (pH 9.01) containing 5 mM beta-cyclodextrin. Thermal decomposition of glycyrrhizin, which was a major ingredient in licorice, was first studied in detail, indicating the conversion of glycyrrhizin to glycyrrhetinic acid. The licorice extracts were then analyzed to indicate the above thermal conversion did occur in the licorice samples. This finding may shed some light on understanding the differences in the therapeutic values of raw versus roasted licorice in herbal medicine.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.340 · 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