MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173150748 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.15215

Unravelling scientific research towards the green extraction of phenolic compounds from leaves: a bibliometric analysis

2021· article· en· W3173150748 on OpenAlexaff
Nushrat Yeasmen, Md. Hafizur Rahman Bhuiyan, Valérie Orsat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutraceuticalWeb of scienceBibliometricsScientific literatureComputer sciencePolitical scienceLibrary scienceChemistryMEDLINEBiologyFood scienceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Phenolic compounds (PCs) have been finding increasing applications in functional foods, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and nutraceuticals due to their nutritional and antioxidant properties. Considering the drawbacks of conventional extraction methods, there is an ongoing challenge for researchers to develop green extractions (GE) of PCs in a sustainable and eco‐friendly way. A bibliometric study is a valuable tool to provide quantitative information for evaluating the scientific research activity based on the available published scientific literature. This bibliometric study aims for the first time to unravel the scientific exploration towards the GE of phenolics from plant by‐products, that is, leaves by focussing on scientific publications collected through the Web of Science database. Consequently, insights into the evaluation of publication trends, authors, countries, organisations, keywords, journals, publishers and citations in support of GE were established. The critical evaluation of the results showed an increase in research, during the last decade, on GE of PCs from leaves. The study also revealed Europe as the leader in terms of publications, citations, countries, organisations, as well as authors contributing to this research topic. Following the analysis, directions for future research have also been suggested.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.1390.187
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207