MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758682108 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v6n6p13

Nutrient Composition of Raw, Dry-Roasted, and Skin-On Cashew Nuts

2017· article· en· W2758682108 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNuts composition and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCashew nutFood scienceAnacardiumChemistryNutRaw materialComposition (language)NutrientTanninRoastingHorticultureBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cashew nuts are the second most popular tree nut in the US with sales growing at a rate of 7% per annum. The highest quality cashew nuts are traditionally whole, oil-roasted, and devoid of skins. The development of a technique to remove the caustic cashew nut shell liquid from cashews and leave the skins intact allows for the production of novel cashew products including skin-on or “wrapped” in addition to raw and dry roasted products. This study investigated the nutritional characteristics of these newer cashew products. These products were found to contain bioactive compounds including mono- and poly-unsaturated fatty acids, phytosterols, arginine, magnesium, tocopherols, and phenolic compounds. All the types of cashews exhibited higher levels of phytosterols than the amounts reported for other tree nuts. The skin-on cashews had higher levels of phenolic compounds compared to the other cashew varieties tested, indicating additional health benefits of consuming cashew nuts with skins.

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)0.001
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.328 · 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