Characterization of Major Components in Barks from Five Canadian Tree Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the major components in barks from five Canadian tree species and their chemical and biological properties were characterized.The extractives soluble in hexane, ethanol, and 1% NaOH solution were measured through successive extractions.Total phenolic content was determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu method, antioxidant activity was evaluated by 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl-free radical scavenging assay, and the characteristics of functional groups were analyzed by Fourier transform IR spectroscopy.The formaldehyde-condensable polyphenols were estimated with the Stiasny method.Lignin and holocellulose contents were determined by gravimetric method.Results showed that the amounts of extractives soluble in the three solvents varied significantly with bark species.Lodgepole pine bark contained the highest content of hexane-soluble extractives (15.0%), and aspen bark contained a very high content of ethanol solubles (22.3%).The 1% NaOH solubles ranged from 20.5 to 35.5% of the original bark.Except balsam fir, the total phenolic contents of ethanol solubles were between 200 and 300 mg equivalent catechin per gram of extract.The ethanol-soluble extractives from lodgepole pine bark and sugar maple bark had considerably high antioxidant potential; their IC 50 values were about 11 mg/mL.The barks of softwood species contained a higher amount of formaldehyde-condensable polyphenols than those of hardwood species included in this study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".