MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Właściwości i zastosowanie lecznicze żywicy jodły syryjskiej w historii medycyny i farmacji

2023· article· en· W4390996606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krzysztof Koniewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueOpuscula Musealia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAncient historyArtPinus <genus>GeographyTraditional medicineArchaeologyHistoryMedicineBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Syrian fir [Abies cilicica (Antoine & Kotschy) Carrière] is a slender tree found in the mountainous areas of Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. Its name recalls an ancient land called Cilicia, located in modern-day Turkey; the capital city of this land was Tarsus, where an important trade route called the Gates of Cilicia ran. The rich medicinal properties of the resin naturally flowing from this tree were appreciated by the ancient Egyptians as early as in the Old Kingdom period. It was used as an antiseptic, anti–inflammatory and diuretic agent, but also in cosmetics: an important ingredient of preparations strengthening weakened hair, skin firming and wrinkle reducing. Respiratory ailments, mainly persistent coughs, were widely treated with preparations containing the Syrian fir resin, which was also noted by the Roman historian Pliny the Elder in his famous Naturalis Historia. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the medicinal properties of the Syrian fir, primarily of its resin, and the time period in which it was used for therapeutic purposes. A thorough analysis of the botanical, medical and pharmaceutical literature brings to a conclusion that Syrian fir was often used in the abovementioned applications in ancient times. Since the Middle Ages and continuing into the 19th century, native, neighboring, more popular varieties of fir trees, like the balsam fir, or the Canadian fir, were more often used for medicinal purposes. Many other common species of coniferous trees were used as well, especially the Pinus sylvestris, thanks to which the pine tar (Pix liquida Pini) can still be used today.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueOpuscula MusealiaSame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207