Pharmacognostical, physiochemical and phytochemical evaluation of leaf, stem and root of orchid Dendrobium ochreatum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work was aimed to carry out pharmacognosical and phytochemical evaluation of individual root, stem, and leaves of orchid “Dendrobium ochreatum.” The plant was sun dried and was grounded to fine powder using mechanical grinder followed by sieving. The fine powder was collected and subjected to different pharmacognostical studies like fluorescence analysis under uv light at different wavelength. Physiochemical parameters were also evaluated of the dried plant parts like ash values, loss on drying. Each part of plant like root, stem and leaves were separated and subjected to extraction using soxhletion using different polarity solvents i,e hexane, chloroform, ethanol in gradient elution technique. All total nine plant extracts were obtained, phytochemical screening revealed the presence of important phytoconstituents like alkaloid, glycoside, saponins etc whereas only chloroform extracts of stem exhibited the presence of steroid/phytosterol.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".