MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6994192175

Black Walnut

2007· article· en· W6994192175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNuts composition and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuglansJuglandaceaeDeciduousBeechHardwoodWoody plantVegetation (pathology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black walnut (Juglans nigra L.), also known as eastern black walnut or American walnut, is a fine hardwood species in the family Juglandaceae, section Rhysocaryon (Manning 1978). In general, J. nigra will not cross with species in the sections Cardiocaryon or Trachycaryonv, but J. nigra will cross with J. ailantifolia (Cardiocaryon) (Williams 1990). Juglans nigra will also hybridize to some extent with other Juglans species (Dioscaryon and Rhysocaryon), and one hybrid is recognized: J. nigra × J. regia = J. x intermedia Carr. (USDA-NRCS 2004). Native to the deciduous forests of the eastern United States (USA), from Massachusetts to Florida and west to Minnesota and Texas, and occurring naturally in southern Ontario, Canada, black walnut is seldom found in pure stands, but rather in association with five mixed mesophytic forest cover types: sugar maple, yellow poplar, yellow poplar – white oak – northern red oak, beech – sugar maple, and silver maple – American elm (Williams 1990). Black walnut is a large tree and on good sites may attain a height of 30 to 38 m and diameter of 76 to 120 cm and can exceed 100 years of age (Williams 1990; Dirr 1998; USDA-NRCS 2004). Black walnut is shade intolerant, and control of competing vegetation is especially important in new plantations for the first 3 to 4 years. Black walnut grows best on moist, deep, fertile, well-drained, loamy soils, although it also grows quite well in silty clay loam soils or in good agricultural soils without a fragipan (Williams 1990; Cogliastro et al. 1997). These sites include coves, bottomlands, abandoned agricultural fields, and rich woodlands. Black walnut forms a deep taproot, wide-spreading lateral roots, and has been cultivated since 1686. A toxic chemical ‘juglone’ (5- hydroxy-1, 4-naphthoquinone), naturally occurring in the leaves, buds, bark, nut husks, and roots of black walnut, is a highly selective, cell-permeable, irreversible inhibitor of the parvulin family of peptidylprolyl cis/trans isomerases (PPIases) and functions by covalently modifying sullfhydryl groups in the target enzymes (Henning et al. 1998; Chao et al. 2001). Certain plants, especially tomato, apple, and several conifer species, are adversely affected (allelopathy; foliar yellowing, wilting, and even death) by being grown near the roots of black walnut trees (Goodell 1984; Dana and Lerner 1994). Horses can contract acute laminitis, an inflammation of the foot, when black walnut wood chips or sawdust is used for stall bedding or stables and paddocks are located too close to walnut trees (Galey et al. 1991). Historically, the bark of black walnut was used by several Native Americans, including the Cherokee, Delaware, Iroquois, and Meskwaki, in tea as a cathartic, emetic, or disease remedy agent, and chewed or applied for toothaches, snake bites, and headaches (Moerman 1998, 2003). Caution: the bark should be used cautiously inmedicine because it is poisonous. TheCherokee, Chippewa, and Meskwaki also used the bark to make a dark brown or black dye (Moerman 1998, 2003). The Comanche pulverized the leaves of black walnut for treatment of ringworm, the Cherokee used leaves to make a green dye, and the Delaware used the leaves as an insecticide to dispel fleas (Moerman 1998, 2003). The nut meats were also a food source for Native Americans, and the nuts are still consumed today by people and are an important food source for wildlife.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.044

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicNuts composition and effectsFrench-language works237,207