MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191783915 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.15291

Establishment of novel standardised operating procedures for LF‐NMR: used in rapid detection of typical fruit and vegetable

2021· article· en· W3191783915 on OpenAlexaff
Qing Sun, Min Zhang, Bhesh Bhandari, Vijaya Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsT2 relaxationChemistryRelaxation (psychology)MushroomAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Proton NMRFood scienceNuclear magnetic resonanceChromatographyPhysicsStereochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Although LF‐NMR has been widely used in many fields of food science, the lack of NMR expertise of many food researchers needs to be bridged. Using samples of carrots, bananas, and king oyster mushroom, this work systematically studied the influence of LF‐NMR parameters (repetition time (TR), echo time (TE)) on experimental results. The result showed that the TR of carrot, mushroom and banana were 2684, 4572 and 4317 ms, respectively. The rate of change of signal amplitude can be used as an index to optimise TR. The change of TE has different effects on the short relaxation components of the T 2 distributions and long relaxation components in different TR samples. TE and Nech should be set according to T 2 to record completely the decay process. What’s more, the method of normalised CPMG decay was suggested to eliminate the effects of parameters such as number of scan (NS), pre‐amp regulate gain (PRG) and mass of sample. At last, the standardised operating procedures were proposed to provide a strategy of improving the properties and applications of LF‐NMR.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207