MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180920 · doi:10.1139/z10-035

Plant natural products: a primerThe present review is one in the special series of reviews on animal–plant interactions.

2010· article· en· W2180920 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mark A. Bernards

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyNatural (archaeology)Plant speciesPlant metabolismAromatic plantsTerpenoidEcologyBotanyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the course of evolution, plants have adapted various structural and chemical mechanisms to protect themselves and interact with their environment. The chemical mechanisms are largely based on the secondary metabolites or natural products. Although plant natural products are generally divided into three main categories (terpenoids, alkaloids, and phenylpropanoids) that are based on structural type and biosynthetic origin, there are many other smaller categories of unique compounds. Many important in planta biological functions can be attributed to plant natural products, in large part, owing to their tremendous structural diversity. To understand the functional roles of plant natural products, both as protective compounds and interorganismal signals, it is important to know how they are formed in plants. This minireview provides a general background about the three main categories of plant natural products, their biosynthetic origins, and their structural diversity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207