Comparison of fatty acids omega 3,6 and 9 in ecuadorian and canadian Flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) by gas chromatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study's main objective was the quantification of fatty acids: omega 3: alphalinolenic acid (ALA), omega 6: linoleic acid (LA), omega 9: oleic acid (OA) inEcuadorian and Canadian linseed (Linum usitatissimum L .) by gas chromato-graphy and comparison of these acids in the two types of flaxseed by applyingStudent's t test. To fulfill this purpose a random sampling was performed. Foreach type of linseed 12 samples were taken, of which the total fat extractedusing a Soxhlet apparatus, as a result of this analysis was obtained in Canadianflaxseed average percentage of 40 % fat and 34 % flaxseed Ecuador. The fattyacid present in the samples were esterified, diluted and analyze by gas chro-matography - FID detector equipped with an autosampler and capillar columnTG – Polar. As a result of this analysis it was determined that Canadian flaxseedhas 53 % of Omega 3 (ALA), 16 % of Omega 6 (AL) and 19 % Omega 9 (AO)and the Ecuadorian flaxseed has 53 % of Omega 3 (ALA), 17 % of Omega 6(AL) and 20 % Omega 9 (AO). After performing the t-Student test, it was finallydetermined that there are no significant differences between the values ofOmega 3 (ALA) and 9 (AO) of the two varieties of linseeds and there are signi-ficant differences between the values of omega-6 (AL).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".