Optimization of the Production Process of Bishop’s Crown Pepper (Capsicum baccatum var.) Hydroalcoholic Extract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study developed and evaluated the efficiency of methods to produce hydroalcoholic extract of Bishop’s Crown pepper. Analyses were conducted to investigate the effects of independent variables (ethanol concentration of the extracting solution and resting time) over the dependent variables (percent yield, acidity, carotenoids, phenolic compounds, anthocyanin content and vitamin C). The interactions between the variables were studied through seven factorial experiments. Percent yield (Y%), carotenoids, phenolic compounds and vitamin C were the most satisfactory responses found in this research. The ethanol concentration of the extracting solution (ES) presented significant effect in the Y%, showing better results for extracts produced with a 55%-ethanol ES, while carotenoids, phenolic compounds and vitamin C displayed significant differences according to the ethanol concentration, being these substances found in higher concentrations in extracts produced with the use of an 85%-ethanol ES. Therefore, the higher the ES ethanol concentration, higher is the retention of the bioactive compounds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".