MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120656915 · doi:10.1002/xrs.1255

Characterization of Indian <i>Ayurvedic</i> herbal medicines for their metal concentrations using WD‐XRF spectrometry

2010· article· en· W2120656915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G.Y.S.K. Swamy, Κ. Ravikumar

Bibliographic record

VenueX-Ray Spectrometry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHeavy Metals in Plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertified reference materialsMass spectrometryMetalNuclear chemistryX-ray fluorescenceFluorescence spectrometryCharacterization (materials science)ChemistryMaterials scienceEnvironmental chemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MetallurgyFluorescenceDetection limitChromatographyNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article describes the details of metal concentrations evaluated using wavelength dispersive X‐ray fluorescence (WD‐XRF) spectrometry. A total of 22 elements, Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, K, Ti, Ca, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Hg, Pb, Ba, Au, and Sn from 16 Ayurvedic medicines were characterized. The method was validated by analyzing the six certified reference materials of soil standards [NIST SRM‐2710, CRM 027‐050 (US‐EPA certified), PS‐1, TILL‐1 and TILL‐4 (Canadian certified reference material, CCRMP) and JSO‐1 (Japanese certified reference material)]. The elemental concentrations in all the standards are found to be within ± 10% of the reported values. Crystalline phases in the individual drug samples were explained by powder X‐ray diffraction (XRD) technique. Qualitative phase identification was done using the ICDD database. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueX-Ray SpectrometrySame topicHeavy Metals in PlantsFrench-language works237,207