Comprehensive Profiling of Terpenes and Terpenoids in Different Cannabis Strains Using GC × GC-TOFMS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis contains a wide range of terpenes and terpenoids that are mainly responsible for their distinctive aroma and flavor. These compounds have also demonstrated therapeutic effects either alone and/or as synergistic compounds with other terpenes, terpenoids, and/or cannabinoids. Several studies have attempted to fully characterize terpenes and terpenoids in cannabis; however, most of these studies used one-dimensional gas chromatography, which often results in the co-elution of the compounds. In the present study, we analyzed terpenes and terpenoids in the dried flowers of six cannabis strains using a two-dimensional gas chromatograph time-of-flight mass spectrometer (GC × GC-TOFMS). A total of 146 terpenes and terpenoids were detected across all six cannabis strains with an enhanced separation of 16 terpenes and terpenoids in the second dimension. Additionally, we achieved enhanced separation of four terpenes and terpenoids from a standard mixture in the second dimension. Chemical differences were observed in the number and relative abundance of monoterpenes, monoterpenoids, sesquiterpenes, and sesquiterpenoids in all six strains. We were also able to identify four new terpenoids in cannabis, which are reported here for the first time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it