Analysis and Discrimination of Canadian Honey Using Quantitative NMR and Multivariate Statistical Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address the growing concern of honey adulteration in Canada and globally, a quantitative NMR method was developed to analyze 424 honey samples collected across Canada as part of two surveys in 2018 and 2019 led by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Based on a robust and reproducible methodology, NMR data were recorded in triplicate on a 700 MHz NMR spectrometer equipped with a cryoprobe, and the data analysis led to the identification and quantification of 33 compounds characteristic of the chemical composition of honey. The high proportion of Canadian honey in the library provided a unique opportunity to apply multivariate statistical methods including PCA, PLS-DA, and SIMCA in order to differentiate Canadian samples from the rest of the world. Through satisfactory model validation, both PLS-DA as a discriminant modeling technique and SIMCA as a class modeling method proved to be reliable at differentiating Canadian honey from a diverse set of honeys with various countries of origins and floral types. The replacement method of optimization was successfully applied for variable selection, and trigonelline, proline, and ethanol at a lower extent were identified as potential chemical markers for the discrimination of Canadian and non-Canadian honeys.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".