MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884345447 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05718.s001

Proanthocyanidins in Sea Buckthorn (Hippophae\nrhamnoides L.) Berries of Different Origins with Special\nReference to the Influence of Genetic Background and Growth Location

2016· article· en· W6884345447 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemical and Pharmacological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippophae rhamnoidesProanthocyanidinAltitude (triangle)SubspeciesPartial least squares regressionRange (aeronautics)Genetic variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild\nsea buckthorn berries from Finland (Hippophaë\nrhamnoides ssp. rhamnoides) and China (ssp. sinensis) as well\nas berries of two varieties of ssp. rhamnoides cultivated in Finland and five of ssp. mongolica cultivated in Canada were compared on the basis of the content and\ncomposition of proanthocyanidins (PAs). Among all of the samples,\nonly B-type PAs were found. The contents of dimeric, trimeric, tetrameric,\nand total PAs were in the range of 1.4–8.9, 1.3–9.5,\n1.0–7.1, and 390–1940 mg/100 g of dry weight, respectively.\nThe three subspecies were separated by three validated factors (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup>, 0.724; <i>Q</i><sup>2</sup>, 0.677)\nin the partial least squares discriminant analysis model. Significant\ndifferences in total PAs were found between the ssp. rhamnoides and mongolica samples (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In ssp. rhamnoides, samples grown in northern Finland were characterized by a high\namount of total PAs, typically 2–3 times higher than that in\nthe level found in southern Finland. In ssp. sinensis, altitude did not have a systematic effect on the PA composition,\nsuggesting the significance of the interaction between genetic background\nand growth location.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPhytochemical and Pharmacological StudiesFrench-language works237,207