MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073873708

Essential Oil Yield, Composition, and Bioactivity of SagebrushSpecies in the Bighorn Mountains

2022· article· en· W7073873708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber Optics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential oilChemotypeEucalyptolCampheneCamphorArtemisia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) are dominant wild plants in large areas of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and they include several species and subspecies. The aim was to determine if there are significant differences in essential oil (EO) yield, composition, and biological activity of sagebrush within the Bighorn Mountains, U.S. The EO yield in fresh herbage varied from 0.15 to 1.69% for all species, including 0.25–1.69% in A. tridentata var. vaseyana, 0.64–1.44% in A. tridentata var. tridentata, 1% in A. tridentata var. wyomingensis, 0.8–1.2% in A. longifolia, 0.8–1% in A. cana, and 0.16% in A. ludoviciana. There was significant variability in the EO profile between species, and subspecies. Some EO constituents, such as α-pinene (0–35.5%), camphene (0–21.5%), eucalyptol (0–30.8%), and camphor (0–45.5%), were found in most species and varied with species and subspecies. The antioxidant capacity of the EOs varied between the species and subspecies. None of the sagebrush EOs had significant antimicrobial, antimalarial, antileishmanial activity, or contained podophyllotoxin. Some accessions yielded EO with significant concentrations of compounds including camphor, eucalyptol, cis-thujone, α-pinene, α-necrodol-acetate, fragranol, grandisol, para-cymene, and arthole. Therefore, chemotypes can be selected and possibly introduced into culture and be grown for commercial production of these compounds to meet specific industry needs.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber OpticsFrench-language works237,207