MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165512138 · doi:10.1002/star.201200088

Perspectives on the history of research on starch

2012· article· en· W2165512138 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStarch - Stärke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarchPolymer scienceConstitutionChemistryOrganic chemistryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Starch has been used over several millennia for a number of different applications. However, research on understanding this substance only spans about three centuries starting with Leeuwenhoek who observed it microscopically as discrete granules in 1716. This story of discovery of the molecular structure and architectural makeup of starch will be chronicled in a series of six essays of which this is the first with a focus on the molecular linkages in starch. The principally simple molecular constitution of starch is well known to everyone at this time. However, the researchers that contributed to this knowledge found the substance to be extraordinarily mysterious and the history of research on the molecular constitution of starch spans over several centuries. Starch had been used for thousands of years, which expanded in the early 19th century when it was discovered that it could be transformed into sugars by hydrolysis in dilute sulfuric acid. It took, however, still more than a century before the nature and the true molecular structure of the basic monomeric unit was established. Only after this, was it possible to clarify the nature of the glycosidic linkages in starch.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.266 · 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