Chemotypic Comparison of AFLP Analyzed Indian Peppermint Germplasm to Selected Peppermint Oils of Other Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essential oil components of 20 Indian peppermint accessions were analyzed through GC and GC/MS and compared with the reported components found in oil samples of different countries (22 locations of 19 countries) to check the commercial potential of the germplasm collection. The comparative oil component analyses revealed the close relation of P4 and P5 (Indian collections) with Chinese and P9 to Japanese peppermint. Some of the analyzed samples (P6, P8, P11 and P17) were close to American, Canadian, European and South African oils. Essential oil profiles of Indian accessions P10, P14, P19 and P20 were quite different from others as revealed by component plot analysis. In addition to the similarities, distinct chemotypes in the germplasm were detected with unique essential oil component profiles, which have been discussed in details in this investigation. Further, Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis of these 20 Indian accessions differentiated them genetically with a diversity ranging between 17–95%.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".