MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608490312 · doi:10.30969/acsa.v11i2.652

Históricos e principais usos da própolis apícola

2015· article· pt· W2608490312 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel S. Pereira, Carlos Iberê Alves Freitas, Marinalva Oliveira Freitas, Patrício Borges Maracajá, Jean Berg Alves da Silva, Rosilene Agra da Silva, Daniel Casimiro da Silveira

Bibliographic record

VenueAGROPECUÁRIA CIENTÍFICA NO SEMIÁRIDO · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Food Sciences
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
FundersModerna
KeywordsCola (plant)Political scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A própolis apícola, produto balsâmico obtido de resinas vegetais pelas abelhas exóticas africanizadas (Apis mellifera L.), transportado e processado por estas, oriundo da atividade que explora e mantém estes indivíduos, a apicultura, tem-se mostrado um importante aliado de humanos, plantas e animais no controle de microrganismos indesejáveis. Em razão disto, foi realizada uma revisão bibliográfica com a finalidade de agrupar trabalhos de importância sobre a própolis ao nível mundial. São relacionados alguns dos mais importantes artigos publicados sobre o assunto, para esclarecer as principais questões acerca do histórico do uso da própolis, seus benefícios comprovados através de estudos científicos, e seu potencial uso futuro. O conhecimento disto pelo produtor poderá contribuir consideravelmente para o incremento da atividade apícola, potencialização da apicultura além de unir informações sobre o potencial uso deste como biocontrole e fitoterápico.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGROPECUÁRIA CIENTÍFICA NO SEMIÁRIDOSame topicAgricultural and Food SciencesFrench-language works237,207