MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390849952 · doi:10.5539/jas.v16n2p41

Effects of Post-Harvest Processing Methods on the Quality of Radix et Rhizoma Salviae Miltiorrhizae

2024· article· en· W4390849952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huyen Thu Nguyen, Hang Thi Cu, My Thi Chu, Quach Anh Kiên, Nguyen Minh Nhat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadix (gastropod)Salvia miltiorrhizaCitric acidChemistryRhizomeFood scienceTraditional medicineChromatographyBotanyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of pretreatment, drying and storage methods on maintaining the quality of Radix et Rhizoma Salviae mitiorrhzae postharvest was studied. The experiments used organic acids as acid citric and sodium bisulfate solution to evaluate the pretreatment of Radix et Rhizoma Salviae mitiorrhzae. Rhizome and roots of Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge were pretreated and dried by convection drier and heat pump drier and were preserved by low pressure. The results showed that dipping acid citric solution pH 2.5-3 for 30 minutes restricted the developing of total microorganisms. Using heat pump drier were good sensory quality and retaining tanshinone IIA, salvianolic acid content in Radix et Rhizoma Salviae mitiorrhzae. The method of preserving Radix et Rhizoma Salviae mitiorrhzae by the low pressure 200 mmHg, and 400 mmHg after 9 months at ambient temperature (25-30 oC), humidity (80-85%) maintained better quality than the control. Beside, the moisture’s medicine, tanshinone IIA, salvianolic acid content, and total microorganisms in the experiment samples changed slowly during the storage period.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicTraditional Chinese Medicine AnalysisFrench-language works237,207