Fatty Acid Composition of Flax Sprouts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oil and fatty acid profile of flax (Linum usitatissimum) sprouts and seed were compared to determine nutrition potential of sprouts. Equal quantities of seed from three flax cultivars (Rahab-94, Pembina and Linott) were sprouted twice in three replications and were analysed for oil and fatty acid contents during summer 2011. Three flax cultivars were observed with high oil content on dry weight basis in sprouts (15.9%) and seeds (33.99%). Significant variations (P0.05) variation among three cultivars was observed. The percentage of PUFAs in cultivars Pembina and Linott was 68.7 and in Rahab-94 was 67.7. The percentage of linoleic acid (C18:2) was significantly high in sprouts (19.51%) compared to seed (17.7%). The percentage of linolenic acid (18:3) was high in seed (52.8%) compared to sprouts (48.8%). The ratio of PUFA/SFA in sprouts was high in Pembina (6.97%) and Linott (6.82%) compared to Rahab-94 (6.38%). The fatty acid profile was similar in all the three cultivars with significant (P
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".