MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196733425 · doi:10.22038/rcm.2021.58399.1370

The Effect of Chamomile Extract on Coronavirus

2021· article· en· W3196733425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohaddeseh Sadat Moghaddam, Niyusha Torabzadeh Khorasani, Reza Assaran Darban, Hamid Reza Rahimi

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirusCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Virology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakTraditional medicineMedicineInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is an uncommon respiratory illness that is transmitted primarily by respiratory droplets or direct contact with an infected person. The COVID-19 initially appeared in late 2019 in Wuhan, China, and spread everywhere around the globe. Earlier in 2003, the coronavirus was known due to the human SARS-CoV virus, which infected 8,000 people and caused 800 deaths in southeast Asia and Canada. It should be mentioned that in 2012, another coronavirus, called Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, infected Saudi Arabia and 27 other countries. The SARS-CoV2 belongs to a family of viruses called Coronaviruses that can infect bats, birds, pigs, cows, and different mammals. Some plant extracts are shown to inhibit microorganism replication and may be utilized in medication to treat infectious and non-infectious diseases, one of which is chamomile. chamomile medicinal plant, that has 120 biologically active compounds, the most necessary of which are flavonoids, like apigenin and luteolin, that are shown to possess antiviral activity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.529
GPT teacher head0.695
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicDiverse Scientific Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207