Composition of Essential Oil from <i>Lavandula Angustifolia</i> and <i>L. Intermedia</i> Varieties Grown in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lavender essential oils have been used since antiquity as natural active constituents in products designed for dealing with a broad range of issues including those related to human hygiene, health and personal care, and those concerned with organic agriculture and pest management. The recent and rapidly growing public interest in “natural products” has renewed attention to these plants. Here we report on the composition and insect repellent properties of the essential oils obtained from 12 varieties of the two most commonly cultivated lavender species ( L. angustifolia and L. intermedia), grown in an experimental plot in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, Canada. For comparison, we also analyzed oil composition for three additional lavender oil samples. Our results demonstrate that the locally grown plants produce essential oils that are similar to those found in other parts of the world in terms of the overall olfactory properties, and in that they contain the same constituents found in comparable lavender oils. Some of these oils, including those extracted from Premier, Grosso, Hidcote Giant, and Mailette exhibited potent insect repellent properties.
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 | 0.001 | 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".