MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009759426 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.0c00384

Quantitation of Select Terpenes/Terpenoids and Nicotine Using Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry with High-Temperature Headspace Sampling

2020· article· en· W3009759426 on OpenAlexafffund
Trinh‐Don Nguyen, Seamus Riordan-Short, Thu‐Thuy T. Dang, Rob O’Brien, Matthew Noestheden

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsTerpenoidTerpeneChromatographyChemistryGas chromatographyMass spectrometryGas chromatography–mass spectrometryRepeatabilityRaw materialOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants are the main sources of many high-value bioactive terpenoids used in the medical, fragrance, and food industries. Increasing demand for these bioactive plants and their derivative products (e.g., cannabis and extracts thereof) requires robust approaches to verify feedstock, identify product adulteration, and ensure product safety. Reported here are single-laboratory validation details for a robust testing method to quantitate select terpenes and terpenoids in dry plant materials and terpenoid-containing vaping liquids (e.g., a derivative product) using high-temperature headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, with glycerol used as a headspace solvent. Validated method recoveries were 75-103%, with excellent repeatability (relative standard deviation (RSD) < 5%) and intermediate precision (RSD < 12%). The use of high-temperature headspace (180 °C) permitted terpene and terpenoid profiles to be monitored at temperatures consistent with vaping conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS OmegaSame topicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityFrench-language works237,207