MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321972067 · doi:10.1021/jf3027342

Major Carbohydrate, Polyol, and Oligosaccharide Profiles of Agave Syrup. Application of this Data to Authenticity Analysis

2012· article· en· W2321972067 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie L. Willems, Nicholas H. Low

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgaveChemistryPolyolOligosaccharideFructoseChromatographySucroseCarbohydrateGas chromatographyDisaccharideFood scienceOrganic chemistryBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nineteen pure agave syrups representing the three major production regions and four processing facilities in Mexico were analyzed for their major carbohydrate, polyol, and oligosaccharide profiles, as well as their physicochemical properties (pH, °Brix, total acidity, percent total titratable acidity, and color). Additionally, the detection of intentional debasing of agave syrup with four commercial nutritive sweeteners (HFCS 55 and 90, DE 42 and sucrose) was afforded by oligosaccharide profiling employing both high performance anion exchange liquid chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAE-PAD) and capillary gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (CGC-FID). Results showed that the major carbohydrate and polyol in agave syrups were fructose and inositol with mean concentrations of 84.29% and 0.38%, respectively. Oligosaccharide profiling was extremely successful for adulteration detection with detection limits ranging from 0.5 to 2.0% for the aforementioned debasing agents. Also, all four of these possible adulterants could be detected within a single chromatographic analysis.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations63
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicMicrobial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207