MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148438482

薄壳山核桃(Carya illinoinensis)雄花序营养成分分析

2016· article· ja· W3148438482 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
郑柯斌, 谢娟赟, 刘京晶, 王正加

Bibliographic record

Venue分子植物育种 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

本研究分析测定了2个品种薄壳山核桃雄花序的形态及营养成分。结果显示,薄壳山核桃雄花序蛋白质含量达12.08%~17.90%,纤维素含量丰富,脂肪含量低,富含17种氨基酸,其中必需氨基酸7种,且比例接近FAO/WHO1973修正的理想蛋白质中所含必需氨基酸模式,富含Ca、Mg、Fe、Zn、Se等多种矿质元素。富含多酚及黄酮,具有较强的抗氧化活性。多糖含量达(1.001~1.68)g/100 g,具有一定的保健功效。因此,薄壳山核桃雄花序是一种很好的健康保健食品,有进一步开发利用的价值。

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue分子植物育种Same topicMilitary Technology and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207