MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409291564 · doi:10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102451

Fatty acids and fatty alcohol esters as novel markers of authenticity and extraction method of commercial avocado oil

2025· article· en· W4409291564 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Martín Marín‐Obispo, Arturo A. Mayorga-Martínez, Diana Jessica Obispo‐Fortunato, Jorge Abraham Clorio‐Carrillo, Claudia Gonzalez Viejo, Sigfredo Fuentes, Timothy Schwinghamer, Verónica Patiño-González, Carmen Hernández‐Brenes

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Chemistry X · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersInstituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey
KeywordsAlcoholExtraction (chemistry)ChemistryFood scienceFatty alcoholChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lack of regulations on avocado oil authenticity enabled producers to blend it with cheaper oils without declaring it on the label. This study explored fatty acids (FA) and fatty alcohol esters (FAE) as innovative markers of avocado oil purity and extraction method. Only 40 % of the samples met the FA standards. Regarding FAE, extra virgin samples showed a maximum concentration of 2674.12 ± 570.98 mg total FAE·kg −1 oil, significantly higher than the 640.98 ± 220.06 mg total FAE·kg −1 oil observed in refined samples, making FAE novel markers of extraction method. Furthermore, a canonical discriminant analysis using Wilk's statistic (Λ = 0.008, F 126, 1028.2 = 8.87, p < 0.0001), based on fault concentrations (high, medium, low) of the allegedly pure samples, revealed that the high- and medium-fault clusters aligned closely with declared blends containing canola or safflower oils . FA and FAE are promising molecules to detect adulteration in avocado oil.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Chemistry XSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207