Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balsams have been used since ancient times, due to their therapeutic and healing properties; in the perfume industry, they are used as fixatives, and in the cosmetics industry and in cookery, they are used as preservatives and aromatizers. They are generally defined as vegetable material with highly aromatic properties that supposedly have the ability to heal diseases, not only of the body, but also of the soul. When viewed according to this concept, many substances can be considered balsams. A more modern concept is based on its chemical composition and origin: a secretion or exudate of plants that contain cinnamic and benzoic acids, and their derivatives, in their composition. The most common naturally-occurring balsams (i.e. true balsams) are the Benzoins, Liquid Storaque and the Balsams of Tolu and Peru. Many other aromatic exudates, such as Copaiba Oil and Canada Balsam, are wrongly called balsam. These usually belong to other classes of natural products, such as essential oils, resins and oleoresins. Despite the understanding of some plants, many plants are still called balsams. This article presents a chemical and pharmacological review of the most common balsams.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".