MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123970540 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n3p214

Proximate and Mineral Composition of Nigerian Leafy Vegetables

2012· article· en· W2123970540 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. S. Asaolu, O. S. Adefemi, I. G. Oyakilome, K. E. Ajibulu, M. F. Asaolu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmaranthus hybridusAmaranthChemistryProximateDry matterHibiscus sabdariffaSpinachPotassiumFood scienceLeafy vegetablesAmaranthus cruentusAnimal scienceBotanyHorticultureBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proximate analysis and mineral composition of some Nigerian leafy vegetables: bitter leaf (Veronia amygdalina L), India spinach (Basella alba L), bush buck (Gongronema latifolium), scent leaf (Ocimium grastissimum), Smooth amaranth (Amaranthus hybridus), Roselle plant (Hibiscus sabdariffa) and fluted pumpkin (Telfaria occidentali) were carried out using standard analytical procedures. The moisture content of the samples ranged between 10.0-12.08 %, crude protein, crude fibre, crude fat, ash contents and carbohydrate ranged between: 46.56 and 66.60, 4.02 and 12.08, 3.51 and 14.02, 5.02 and 15.55, 1.16 and 15.79 % dry matter (DM). Mineral element analysis showed that the leafy vegetables contained high levels of calcium (63.36-110.16), magnesium (27.51-288.65), sodium (15.01-88.00) and potassium (16.85-168.96) and low levels of copper (nd-3.14), nickel (2.32-18.16) and manganese (2.54-10.06) mg/100g respectively. The study showed that the leafy vegetables examined contained high levels of crude protein with low fat content and crude fibres.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations132
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207