Chemical Composition of Four Cultivated Tropical Bamboo in Genus Gigantochloa
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".