MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211224820 · doi:10.1016/j.focha.2022.100013

Evaluation of antioxidant potential of honey drops and honey lozenges

2022· article· en· W4211224820 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Chemistry Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBee Products Chemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersMitacs
KeywordsAntioxidantFood scienceChemistryMaillard reactionRaw materialBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The antioxidant potential of honey comes from various components including phenolic acids, enzymes (catalase, glucose oxidase), flavonoids, vitamins, organic acids, and Maillard reaction products that are nascently present in raw honey. Hence, it would be highly beneficial for consumers to develop honey-based candies such as honey drops and lozenges that can maintain health benefits of its precursors. This study is focused on evaluating the changes in chemical profiles of honey, specifically phenolic content and hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) formation upon formulation of raw honey into honey lozenges and honey drops and evaluation of antioxidant properties of honey-based products using different antioxidant assays. Our results indicate that in comparison with raw honey, honey lozenges and drops contain higher total phenolic and HMF components, as well as exhibit greater antioxidant properties as is determined by multiple antioxidant assays.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · 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