MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386441939 · doi:10.28926/briliant.v8i3.1574

Peningkatan Nilai Guna Cangkang Kepiting sebagai Kitosan untuk Raw Material pada Pasta Gigi Herbal

2023· article· id· W4386441939 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanita Amalia Hariyanto, Irma Antasionasti, Meilani Jayanti

Bibliographic record

VenueBriliant Jurnal Riset dan Konseptual · 2023
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Products and Applications
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear chemistryChemistryPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sejauh ini inovasi raw material pasta gigi herbal yang berasal dari limbah masih jarang dikembangkan, cangkang kepiting menjadi material yang berpotensi untuk menjadi bahan baku dalam pembuatan pasta gigi herbal. Tujuan penelitian ini yaitu mengembangkan limbah cangkang kepiting menjadi material yang memiliki nilai ekonomi. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan ekstraksi dan sintesis sederhana. Karakterisasi XRD, FTIR, dan SEM-EDX digunakan untuk menganalisis kristalinitas, gugus fungsi, dan morfologi kitosan. Hasil analisis menunjukkan struktur kitosan membentuk kristalin yang ditunjukkan dengan terkonfirmasinya tiga puncak tajam pada 2-teta 19o, 26o, dan 29o. Hasil analisis puncak serapan FTIR menunjukkan terdeteksinya 5 gugus fungsi utama kitosan pada bilangan gelombang 3458 cm-1, 2895,15 cm-1, 1654,92 cm-1, 1587,42 cm-1, dan 1386,82 cm-1 adalah OH stretching, CH(CH3) bending, C=O (-NHCOCH3) stretching amida I, NH (-NHCOCH3) bending amida II, CH (-CH2) bending sym secara berturut-turut. Morfologi kitosan yang disintesis dari cangkang kepiting berpori, bergelombang, dan bentuknya tidak teratur serta unsur yang terkandung yaitu C, O, Ca, dan Si.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriliant Jurnal Riset dan KonseptualSame topicNatural Products and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207