MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410911551 · doi:10.5650/jos.ess24339

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Olive Oil of ‘<i>Koroneiki</i>’ with Different Maturity Indices by GC-IMS

2025· article· en· W4410911551 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oleo Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)ChemistryGas chromatography–mass spectrometryFood scienceOlive oilChromatographyMass spectrometryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the optimal harvest period of olives by distinguishing the olive oils with different fruit maturity indices (MIs). Gas chromatography ion-mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) technology was employed to qualitatively and differently analyze the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of olive oil extracted from eight MIs of 'Koroneiki' olive fruits, harvested in Longnan City, Gansu Province, China. The results showed that 40 signal peaks were isolated in the eight olive oils with different MIs, and 33 VOCs were identified. These include alcohols (7 kinds), esters (7 kinds), aldehydes (6 kinds), ketones (5 kinds), acids (2 kinds), olefins (2 kinds), and other compounds (4). A total of 20 differential markers for key flavors, with variable importance in the projection (VIP) > 1, were screened out by orthogonal partial least squares - discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). The results showed that the olive oil samples of the 7th maturity index (QJ7), QJ8, and QJ5, QJ6 have significant differences from the other four olive oils. This suggests that olive oils with different maturity indices can be effectively distinguished.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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