MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807858297 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v10n7p69

Salvia Hispanica L (Chia Seeds) as Brain Superfood – How Seeds Increase Intelligence

2018· article· en· W2807858297 on OpenAlex
Peter Onneken

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

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPolysaccharides Composition and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)CognitionTraditional medicineSalviaPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of nutrition on cognitive abilities is undisputed in academic literature. Omega-3 fatty acids in particular delivered convincing results in several studies. In recent years chia seeds (Salvia Hispanica L) are becoming increasingly popular in Europe as well. In a trial the authors divided the study participants into two groups: an intervention group and a control group. The participants of the intervention group consumed a daily dose of 5 grams chia seeds over a time period of 21 days.In total, the test group that participated in the intervention performed significantly better in the retest than the comparison group. They improved their verbal intelligence and enhanced their ability in problem solving. Insofar, the classification of Salvia Hispanica L as a superfood, respectively brain superfood, is scientifically justified.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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