MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545597789 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.5750

Effects of 1‐methylcyclopropene and post‐controlled atmosphere air storage treatments on fresh‐cut Ambrosia apple slices

2012· article· en· W1545597789 on OpenAlexaff
Francesca Tardelli, Lucia Guidi, Rossano Massai, P.M.A. Toivonen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrowningPolyphenol oxidaseChemistryPeroxidase1-MethylcyclopropeneFood scienceDaucus carotaCatechol oxidaseHorticultureBotanyBiochemistryEnzymeBiologyEthylene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effect of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) treatment and two different post-controlled atmosphere air storage (PCAAS) durations on the quality and chemistry of fresh-cut Ambrosia apple slices was studied. RESULTS: PCAAS for 1 or 2 weeks prior to slicing had an overall positive effect on the resultant quality of fresh-cut apple slices. The most significant responses to PCAAS were the suppression of both phenolic and o-quinone accumulation in slices, and this was related to the significantly lower browning potential values obtained for slices from PCAAS-treated apples. Polyphenol oxidase (PPO), peroxidase (POX) and ascorbate peroxidase (APOX) activities were not affected by 1-MCP or PCAAS treatments. PPO and POX activities were almost completely inhibited by a 50 g L⁻¹ calcium ascorbate anti-browning dip of apple slices from all treatments. CONCLUSION: The most dramatic effect of the PCAAS treatments was to reduce the accumulation of soluble phenolics, which is likely the reason that o-quinone accumulation was also inhibited in treated fruits. The consequent reduction in browning potential may be the explanation as to why PCAAS treatment has been shown to reduce fresh apple slice browning in previous work.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207