MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089395269 · doi:10.1177/0967033520950516

Predicting terpene content in dried conifer shoots using near infrared spectroscopy

2020· article· en· W3089395269 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
FundersNorthern Research Station
KeywordsTerpeneMyrceneChemistryGas chromatographyEssential oilBotanyChromatographyLimoneneBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terpenes are phytochemicals found in multiple plant genera, especially aromatic herbs and conifers. Terpene content quantification is costly and complex, requiring the extraction of oil content and gas chromatography analyses. Near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy could provide an alternative quantitative method, especially if calibration can be developed with the spectra of dried plant material, which are easier and faster to acquire than oil-based spectra. Here, multispecies NIR spectroscopy calibrations were developed for total terpene content (mono- and sesquiterpenes) and for specific terpenes (α-pinene, β-pinene and myrcene) with five conifers species ( Picea glauca, Picea rubens, Pinus resinosa, Pinus strobus and Thuja occidentalis). The terpene content of fresh shoot samples was quantified with gas chromatography. The NIR spectra were measured on freeze-dried samples (n = 137). Using a subset of the samples, modified partial least squares regressions of total terpene and the three individual terpenes content were generated as a functions of the NIR spectra. The standard errors of the internal cross-validations (values between 0.25 and 2.28) and the ratio of prediction to deviation ratios (RPD values between 2.20 and 2.38) indicate that all calibrations have similar accuracy. The independent validations, however, suggest that the calibrations for total terpene and α-pinene content are more accurate (respective coefficient of determination: r 2 = 0.85 and 0.82). In contrast, calibrations for β-pinene and myrcene had a low accuracy (respectively: r 2 = 0.62 and 0.08), potentially because of the low concentration of these terpenes in the species studied. The calibration model fits (i.e., r 2 ) are comparable to previously published calibration using the spectra of dried shoot samples and demonstrate the potential of this method for terpenes in conifer samples. The calibration method used could be useful in several other domains (e.g. seedling breeding program, industrial), because of the wide distribution of terpenes and especially of pinenes.

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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.209 · 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