MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094497354 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v9n6p36

Greener Analytical Method for Determination of Iodine Number of Edible Oils

2020· article· en· W3094497354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thidarat Kruatian, Kritsana Jitmanee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChiang Mai University
KeywordsReagentIodineSolventChromatographyChemistryStandard additionIodine valueStandard solutionDetection limitOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A greener analytical method for determination of iodine number (IN) of oils is presented. As per the AOAC standard method, a large amount of solvent and reagent was used, and long incubation time was required. This research is aimed at using less amount of solvent and reagent, less sample weight, and shorten the analysis time by using the modified titrimetric AOAC standard method. The study showed that by reducing the sample size, the amount of reagent could be decreased to 1.00 mL and the reaction time of 1 min is enough for completion of the reaction. The amount of reagent used was at least 25 times less than that of the classical method. There was no significant difference at 95% confidence level between the results obtained by the proposed method and the standard method, and both results correlated well. The present method can be applied to edible oils commonly found in the market (iodine number range of 6.0 to 130).

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207