MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of Chemical Constituents in Ficus Hirta Vahl. by LCMS-IT-TOF and GC-MS

2020· article· en· W3006534999 on OpenAlex
Wenjing Tang, Jianping Chen, Mengjiao Du, Lishi Chen, Yi Yang, Shufen Wu, Biting Zhang, Chuqin Yu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsCentre for Drug Research and Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyGas chromatography–mass spectrometryAnthraquinoneChemical constituentsBergaptenTerpeneMass spectrometryEthanolTraditional medicineOrganic chemistryPsoralen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: Analysis the chemical constituents from the roots of Ficus hirta . Methods: The Ficus hirta Vahl. were extracted with 75% ethanol. Qualitative analysis of ethanol extracts was carried out by using high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LCMS-IT-TOF) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Result: Twenty compounds were identified by LCMS-IT-TOF. Nine compounds were identified by GC-MS. Psoralens and bergapten were identified by LCMS-IT-TOF and GC-MS. Conclusion: LC-MS-TOF and GC-MS have identified 27 compounds, including 9 flavonoids, 6 coumarins, 3 organic acids, 3 organic alcohols, 2 organic esters, 1 terpene, 1 polyphenol, 1 alkaloid and 1 anthraquinone, which laid a foundation for further study of F icus hirta Vahl. and its compound preparations.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.178 · 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