Chemical Composition of Four Cultivated Tropical Bamboo in Genus Gigantochloa
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chemical compositions of cultivated 3 year-old bamboo culms of Gigantochloa brang, G. levis, G. scortechinii and G. wrayi were studied. The culms exhibited different chemical composition in extractives, Alpha-cellulose, lignin and ash contents between the bamboo species, location in the culms and position at the nodes and internodes. The extractive content in four species ranged from 8.30 to 9.23%. The extractive content of G.brang, G.levis, G.scortechinii and G.wrayi were 8.30%, 9:23%, 8:00% and 8.62% respectively. The holocellulose content for G. levis were 85.08%, G. wrayi 84.53%, G. brang 79.94% and G. scortechinii 74.62%. The holocellulose content for the cultivated bamboo genus Gigantochloa were 74% to 85%. The ?- cellulose is the chemical constituents in the holocellulose. The highest was G.brang (51.58%) followed by G. scortechinii (46.87%), G. wrayi (37.66%) and G. levis (33.80%). The lignin content ranged between 24.84 to 32.65%. The highest were obtained in G. scortechinii (32.55%), G. wrayi (30.04%), G. levis (26.50%) and lowest in G. brang (24.83%). The ash content in four species of Gigantochloa bamboo ranged between 0.88 to 2.86%. The ash content is the highest in G. scortechinii (2.83%) follow by G. levis (1.29%), G. brang (1.25%) and the lowest in G. wrayi (0.88%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it