MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164254251 · doi:10.1021/jf000245v

Retention of Caffeic Acid Derivatives in Dried<i>Echinacea purpurea</i>

2000· article· en· W2164254251 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerbal Medicine Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersTexas Christian University
KeywordsCaffeic acidChemistryEchinacea (animal)Food scienceChromatographyFreeze-dryingTraditional medicineBiochemistryAntioxidantMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different drying methods were applied to fresh Canadian-grown Echinacea purpurea flowers to determine optimal drying procedures for preserving caffeic acid derivatives. Fresh flowers of E. purpurea were dried by freeze-drying (FD), vacuum microwave drying with full vacuum (VMD), and air-drying (AD) at 25, 40, and 70 degrees C. Using HPLC, chicoric acid and caftaric acid levels were quantitated in dried flowers. These acids were significantly affected by the drying method conditions used. Although significant (p < 0.05) loss of chicoric acid was observed when flowers were stored at high moisture, VMD flowers with a low moisture content retained the highest levels of chicoric acid and caftaric acid similar to FD flowers. Flowers that were AD at 25 degrees C retained about 50%, while those dried by AD at 70 degrees C resulted in the lowest retention of these acids. Although flowers dried by AD at 40 degrees C retained relatively high amounts of chicoric acid and caftaric acid, the time (55 h) required to reach optimal drying was considerably longer than that (47 min) for VMD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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