Essential Oil Content, Composition and Bioactivity of Juniper Species in Wyoming, United States
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate variations in leaf essential oil (EO) content and composition of Juniperus species in the Bighorn Mountains {J comimunis L. (common juniper), J. horizontalis Moench. (creeping juniper), and J scopulorum Sarg. (Rocky Mountain juniper)} in Wyoming, USA. The EO was extracted via steam distillation of fresh leaves (needles). The EO composition of the three Juniper species varied widely. Overall, the essential oil content of fresh leaves was 1.0% (0.4-1.8% range in different accessions) in J. communis, 1.3% (1.2 to 1.6% range) in J. horizontalis, and 1.1% (0.7-1.5% range) in J. scopulorln. The EO chemical profile of J. communis was very different from that of the other two species. The concentration of α-pinene in the oil was 67- 80% in J. communis, 2.8-6% in J. horizontalis, and 2.3-13% in J. scopulorun. The concentration of sabinene was 57-61% of the oil of J. horizontalis and 13- 59%. in oil of J. scopulorum, whereas sabinene was either below 1% or not detected in J. communis. The oils of J scopulorm and J horizontalis had higher antioxidant capacity than that of J. communis. The oils of the three junipers did not show significant antimicrobial activity against 10 organisms. The diversity of the essential oil composition of these three junipers may encourage diverse industrial applications of Juniperus leaf essential oil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it