MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297970284 · doi:10.5513/jcea01/23.1.3293

Essential oil content, yield, and components from the herb, leaf, and stem of curly-leafed parsley at three harvest days

2022· article· en· W4297970284 on OpenAlexaff
Hoda SANY, Hussein A. H. Said‐Al Ahl, Tess Astatkie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Central European Agriculture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerbEssential oilYield (engineering)CultivarStem-and-leaf displayHorticultureBiologyMedicinal herbsBotanyTraditional medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parsley (Petroselium crispum L.) is commonly used for its flavor, desired nutritional contents, and other health benefits. However, since the profile of a recently introduced curly-leafed parsley cultivar in Egypt has not been studied, an experiment was conducted to compare three harvest dates in terms of the weight, essential oil (EO) content and yield, and the concentrations of major components in the whole herb, leaf, and stem parts. The results showed that the highest herb and leaf yields were obtained from the second harvest, but the first harvest gave the highest stem yield. The highest EO content and yield were obtained from the first harvest. The major EO components obtained from the three parts were β-phellandrene, α-terpinolene, 1,3,8-p-menthatriene, myristicin, and elemicin. The highest concentrations of α-terpinolene, myristicin, and elemicin were obtained from the whole herb; but the highest β-phellandrene and 1,3,8-p-menthatriene were obtained from the leaf and the stem. The findings revealed that the yield, EO content and yield, and concentration of the major components varied with harvest day and part of the plant. These results can be used to determine when and where to extract EO to maximize the desired content, yield, or component.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Central European AgricultureSame topicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityFrench-language works237,207